wave_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the token is encrypted with AES-256-GCM at rest and that compute is routed through the backend. However, it does not specify whether the token is stored, what happens on disconnect, or any side effects of the 'connect' action beyond saving the token.

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 three concise sentences with the primary purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value (purpose, routing detail, token source and security), with no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

With no output schema and three required parameters, the description lacks details on expected return values or success/failure indicators. It does not explain what happens after a successful 'connect' (e.g., whether a session is established or a connection ID is returned), which is necessary for an agent to orchestrate subsequent actions.

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 100%, so the description adds limited value. It reinforces the token source and mentions encryption, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide (e.g., action enum values are fully described in 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to connect to Wave OS using an auth token and route Theta compute through the Wave OS backend. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication and backend routing, not on data manipulation or subagent delegation.

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 provides clear guidance on where to get the auth token (oswave.io/settings/developer) and notes that the connection is credit-gated and does not require a raw API key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like theta_configure or theta_check_credentials.

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