wb_validate

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 check but never states whether validation mutates the file, whether it must be run before build steps (wb_build_prepare, wb_build_verify), what it reports on success or failure, or what permissions are needed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 an undocumented required parameter, the description should explain what a validation result contains (error list? boolean? report file?) and what "caches" means in this context. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the outcome of calling it.

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% for the single required parameter "file", and the description does not mention it at all. An agent cannot tell whether "file" is a project file, a world/scene file, a NodeRef document, or a path relative to some workspace root.

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 ("Validate") and enumerates resource types (references, NodeRefs, caches), which is better than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes this from validation-adjacent siblings such as wb_compat_scan, wb_refs, or wb_build_verify, and "World Builder-specific" is vague enough that an agent cannot confidently pick this tool over them.

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 statement of when to run validation, what precondition triggers it, or which sibling to use instead. With dozens of wb_* siblings, the absence of any routing guidance leaves selection entirely to inference from the name.

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