wb_native_template_verify

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the coverage check but says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, what a result looks like (boolean vs. a list of missing types), what happens when types are missing, or what errors occur on unreadable input. 'Verify' implies a non-mutating check, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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, and the verification target is stated before the qualifying context. It is dense with domain jargon but every clause carries information, so nothing needs trimming.

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, the description is the only source of truth—yet it omits return semantics, input formats, and prerequisites such as whether the bundle must first be produced by wb_native_template_plan. For a specialized build-chain verification step, this leaves the calling agent guessing on essentials.

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 are undocumented in the schema and the description must compensate. It only loosely gestures at them—'captured ... bundle' maps to 'bundle' and 'World Builder export' to 'export_file'—without stating expected formats (JSON file? directory? manifest?), where the bundle comes from, or whether paths are relative.

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 and resource: verify that a captured cp77wb RED type template bundle covers all types required by a World Builder export. That is concrete enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings such as wb_native_template_plan, wb_native_verify, or wb_native_preflight, so the niche vocabulary ('cp77wb RED type template bundle') carries most of the disambiguation.

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 guidance on when to call this instead of wb_native_template_plan (which presumably creates the bundle this tool verifies), wb_native_verify, or wb_native_preflight. A sequencing hint can be inferred from 'captured ... bundle' and 'required by a World Builder export', but no exclusions or alternatives are named, which matters given the dense cluster of native/build siblings.

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