wb_refs

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only listing, whether the 'file' argument is opened or created, or what happens if the file is missing or invalid. The only behavioral hint is the word 'List', which implies non-mutation but is not explicit.

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 short sentence with no filler and the verb front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing parameter and behavior detail.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must explain both the shape of the returned reference list and the meaning of the required file argument; it does neither. For a file-scoped listing tool this leaves significant ambiguity for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single required parameter 'file' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should explain what kind of file is expected. It does not mention the parameter at all, though the domain context (a World Builder project file) makes the intent inferable. This is roughly a low-baseline score rather than a total gap.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('NodeRef definitions and known World Builder references'), which is enough to place it in the wb_* family alongside wb_generate_noderef and wb_find. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so the distinction between this and wb_find/wb_get must be inferred.

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 gives no indication of when to call this versus wb_find, wb_get, wb_tree, or wb_generate_noderef, nor any preconditions. The agent is left to guess the scenario from the name alone.

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