wb_build_doctor

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at read-style inspection (verifying structure, summarizing log lines) but never states whether anything is mutated, what permissions or game installation state are required, how large the log scan is, or what the diagnostic output looks like.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the verification half is front-loaded. The only cost is that it packs two distinct behaviors into one clause without structure to separate them.

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 annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters (one required), the description should do considerably more work. It never explains the required 'layout' input, the scope of the log scan, or what the agent receives back, which is inadequate for a diagnostic tool of this shape.

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 description coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The description only weakly implies that 'tail' bounds the log-line summary; the required 'layout' parameter and 'game_root' are given no meaning at all in the text, leaving the agent to guess at formats and acceptable values.

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 two concrete operations — verifying package structure/conflicts and summarizing issue-like log lines from World Builder/CET/framework sources. The verb+resource is specific enough for an agent to know roughly what happens, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like wb_build_verify, wb_validate, wb_compat_scan, or wb_logs, so the boundary of its purpose stays fuzzy.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance. An agent must infer from the word 'doctor' and 'verify' that this is a diagnostic entry point, and cannot tell whether it should be preferred over wb_build_verify or wb_logs for the same symptom.

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