wb_live_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search but does not describe return behavior, pagination via limit, timeout semantics, live-connection requirements, or error cases.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps assessed in other dimensions.

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 four-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not give an agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly or understand its results.

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, but it does not explain any of the four parameters. The required rpc_dir parameter and the limit, query, and timeout parameters are left entirely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb, "Search," and a concrete resource, "paths/names in the currently loaded World Builder hierarchy." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings like wb_find, wb_tree, or wb_get.

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 description implies usage against the currently loaded hierarchy, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer whether this is the right search tool versus wb_find or wb_semantic_search.

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