wb_export_xl

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important behavioral trait: this is non-mutating ('without writing files'). However, it says nothing about what is returned (no output schema exists), whether the derived structure is printed, kept in memory, or handed to a later build step, nor about requirements on the input export.

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?

One tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the non-writing constraint attached immediately. Nothing is redundant, though the dense jargon compounds make it slightly harder to parse than its length suggests.

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?

For a parameterized, unannotated, no-output-schema tool, the description leaves too much open: no statement of the return value, no indication of what the generated structure can feed into, and no relationship to the many wb_export_*/wb_build_* siblings.

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% — export_file is an untyped-by-description string with no naming convention, path form, or expected file format. The description only obliquely implies the parameter is 'a World Builder export', which is a marginal addition rather than the compensation low coverage requires.

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 specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('the ArchiveXL structure implied by a World Builder export'), and adds a scoping clause ('without writing files') that distinguishes it from build/import siblings. The term 'ArchiveXL structure' is domain jargon an agent may not resolve, but the intent — deriving a structure definition from an existing export — is legible.

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 'without writing files' clause hints at a dry-run/preview role, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no sibling is named. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to reach for this instead of wb_export_inspect, wb_build_prepare, or wb_native_convert.

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