wave_check_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It does not mention that by default (mark_read=true) the tool marks messages as read, making it a state-modifying operation. This omission hides a key behavioral trait.

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 two sentences—short and focused. The first sentence defines the action, the second specifies the return value. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 states the return type but not its structure (no output schema). It omits the default marking behavior and prerequisites. For a tool with two parameters, it is partially complete but has notable 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 coverage is 50% (only mark_read has a description). The tool description adds no explanation for workspace_id or further context for mark_read beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool checks for unread messages from Wave OS, specifying they are notifications for Cursor and of type 'cursor_message'. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like wave_send_message.

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?

The description implies usage for picking up pending notifications but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wave_morning_briefing). No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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