wb_bounds_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Read" implies a non-mutating operation, but nothing states whether permissions are needed, whether omitting id returns all assets or errors, or what the 'heuristic fallback' behavior actually entails when explicit bounds are absent.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted padding, but the compression comes at the cost of clarity — several undefined terms are packed into one clause rather than being unpacked.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation for a two-parameter tool, so the description needed to do substantially more work. It does not explain the return shape (per-asset bounds? a collection?) or the relationship between the required database and optional id.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented anywhere. The description never mentions what 'id' selects or what 'database' refers to, and gives no indication that id is optional while database is required — the schema alone leaves this ambiguous.

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 verb ("Read") and a resource ("asset bounds"), plus the concept of fallback metadata, so the general intent is inferable. However, the phrasing "explicit/effective asset bounds and heuristic fallback metadata" is dense jargon with no explanation of what distinguishes explicit from effective bounds or what the heuristic fallback is, leaving the actual purpose only partially clear.

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 guidance is given on when to call this versus wb_bounds_set (mutating bounds), wb_bounds_import, or wb_assets_info. The only hint is that this is the read counterpart to a setter, which the agent must infer from the verb alone.

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