wave.ask

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: 'Reads only', 'never the live network', 'calls no other tool, signs no payment, and makes no side-effecting or network request', plus guaranteed `executes: false` and absence of a `model` field. It even points to SKILL.md for the full contract.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential safety/behavior disclosures and a pointer to the full contract. Every sentence adds distinct information; it is dense but not padded, and the structure follows importance order.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the proposal's key fields (product, MCP tool, price shape), its execution semantics, and its return contract (`executes: false`, no `model` field). The reference to SKILL.md covers edge details without bloating the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already richly explains `question` (untrusted, only selects fixed compositions) and `budgetUsd` (reorders suggestions, never invents a price). The tool description adds useful context about output shape but no additional per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Propose a WAVE flow (product + MCP tool + price shape)' for a plain-language media-processing goal. It also distinguishes itself from execution siblings by stating 'never executes' and 'Returns a proposal object for you to call yourself.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly scopes when to use it: any media-processing goal stated in plain language where a WAVE flow proposal is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the heavy emphasis on read-only, non-executing behavior makes the boundary with execution-focused siblings clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.