Wave: Get Oauth Application

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

The description adds the nuance that it retrieves the application tied to the current access token, which is slightly beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits or response size.

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, short sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description could be improved by hinting at what fields are returned. However, for a simple retrieval tool with good annotations and parameter schema, the current description is nearly complete.

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% (the single parameter 'response_format' is fully described in the schema). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (OAuth application), and the scope (issued the current access token). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention OAuth applications.

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 when to use the tool (when you need information about the OAuth application associated with the current token) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools like wave_auth_status might offer related functionality, but no guidance is provided.

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