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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the operation is a list but doesn't disclose pagination behavior for 'limit', whether results are sorted, whether authentication or a wilds_enter session is required, or the volume of returns.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no filler. Efficient though minimal.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It doesn't tell the agent what a returned build contains, whether it must enter the world first (wilds_enter), or any constraints on listing.

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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description adds no meaning about its usage, default, or range. For a 1-param tool with zero schema docs, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

Clear verb 'List' and resource 'playable autonomous-agent builds' scoped to 'Wild Forge'. Distinct from siblings like wilds_read_build (single build) and wilds_list_chronicle/marks (different resources). Not fully 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closest sibling wilds_read_build.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as wilds_discover or wilds_list_marks/read_build. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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