wave_design_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses the main behavior (full extraction pipeline) and the return value (manifest.json with files, sha256s, owed), but it omits side effects such as writing the extract directory or the potential season-delta.json output, and gives no indication of whether extraction is non-destructive.

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 description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the extracted components, and states the return value. There is no filler or duplication of schema content.

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?

The description plus the schema covers the main action, required input, optional parameters, and return value, which is enough for a basic invocation. However, the lack of usage context relative to sibling design tools and the under-disclosed file-writing side effects leave noticeable gaps.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no new parameter semantics, but it names the underlying package and pipeline, so it neither improves nor conflicts with the schema.

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 names a concrete action ('Run ... extraction pipeline') on a specific resource (a .pen board) and enumerates what the pipeline produces: plates/tokens/geometry/copy/components/receipts/frames/manifest. This makes the tool's purpose reasonably distinct from the design-contract/measure siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as wave_design_contract, wave_design_measure, or wave_design_contract_check. The description implies the input is a .pen board but does not state intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent decide between alternatives.

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