wb_compat_scan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says whether the scan is read-only, whether it requires a live editor connection or a specific WB version, what happens when the install cannot be found, or what the comparison result contains.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the optional comparison clause. The slash-delimited list ('version/features/module schema') is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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 zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description is the only source of truth and it leaves the return shape, failure modes, and both parameter formats unexplained. For a diagnostic tool whose whole value is its report, that is a substantial gap.

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 the description must compensate for both parameters. It partially does: 'source/install' maps to world_builder_root and 'a saved build' maps to project, giving each a role. It still omits expected formats (filesystem path? project name?) and whether project is required for the comparison branch.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Scan') and a concrete resource set (World Builder version, features, module schema), plus an optional comparison mode. An agent can tell this is a compatibility/inspection tool rather than a geometry or live-editing tool, though it never names a sibling to disambiguate it from the many wb_build_* verification tools.

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 word 'optionally' hints that the comparison mode is triggered by supplying a saved build, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing against near-neighbours such as wb_build_verify, wb_build_doctor, or wb_validate. The agent must infer the call context entirely.

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