wb_prefab_render

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: it returns the rendered JSON unless `output` is supplied, implying a file-write side effect in that case. It says nothing about what happens with unresolved placeholders, whether rendering is recursive, or whether existing output files are overwritten.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the conditional return behavior appended. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence fails to earn its place.

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 three-parameter templating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the output/non-output branching. It leaves significant gaps around placeholder resolution semantics and the nested `parameters` object, which is the parameter most likely to be misused.

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, and it partially does: the `${parameter}` notation explains the relationship between the `template` string and the `parameters` object, and 'unless output is supplied' clarifies `output`. It does not explain whether `parameters` is flat or nested, how nested or dotted keys map to placeholders, or the expected file format for `output`.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: render `${parameter}` placeholders in a JSON WB prefab/build template. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from geometry tools such as wb_tree, wb_move, or wb_array. It does not, however, differentiate itself from neighboring template/build tools like wb_native_template_plan or wb_native_json.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent can infer you call this when you have a templated JSON prefab and need substitutions. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., whether wb_native_json or wb_plan_compile should be preferred for other template workflows).

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