Show the local WoW installation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The word 'Report' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses what information is returned (paths, flavors, build numbers, addons). It doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by practical usage. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what is reported and why to use it. It lists the categories of information returned, making it sufficient for an agent to decide when to call. A bit more detail on the output structure could earn a 5, but this is not a significant gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides no information to clarify. The description adds value by describing the kind of data returned (paths, flavors, build numbers, addons), which helps set expectations for the output. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clearly states the verb ('Report') and the resource ('World of Warcraft installations found on this machine'), with specific details (paths, flavors, build numbers, addons) that distinguish it from sibling tools which focus on APIs, UI files, linting, etc.

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 explicit use cases: 'confirm which client tools will target' and 'discover addon folders to lint.' While it provides clear context, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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