wb_build_verify

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, yet it does not say whether verification is read-only, what checks are performed, whether it fails hard or returns a report, or whether it touches the installed game. All an agent knows is that something gets 'verified', which is insufficient for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short sentence, which is appropriately sized, but the wording is awkward and ambiguous ('verify ... and optional conflicts with'), so the brevity comes at the cost of parseability rather than from discipline.

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 undocumented parameters, the description would need to explain what success and failure look like and what the optional game_root check adds. It does none of this, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome of a call.

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%, so both parameters rely entirely on the description, which is silent about them. The phrases 'prepared game-layout package' and 'installed game' only loosely suggest the roles of 'layout' and 'game_root'; no format, path convention, or optionality of game_root is explained even though its presence presumably triggers the conflict check.

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?

It names a specific verb, 'Verify', and resource, a 'prepared game-layout package', so the general intent is legible. However, the second clause 'and optional conflicts with an installed game' is grammatically garbled and does not clarify what gets verified, and nothing distinguishes it from the many verification-adjacent siblings such as wb_validate, wb_native_verify, wb_build_status, wb_build_doctor, or wb_worker_preflight.

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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the package must first be produced by wb_build_prepare or wb_build_package), and no mention of when to prefer a sibling like wb_validate or wb_build_doctor instead. The word 'prepared' hints at a precondition but never states it.

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