wb_build_backends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Detect' and 'report' imply a read-only inspection, which is the only behavioral signal given; there is no statement about side effects, whether any files/state are touched, permissions, or what a 'boundary' result even looks like. For a zero-annotation tool this leaves the agent guessing about safety and outcome.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing context rather than being a virtue on its own.

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 should explain what 'report the Linux-native conversion boundary' returns and how an agent should act on it; it does not. Combined with two fully undocumented parameters, the definition is too thin for a diagnostic tool whose output presumably drives subsequent build decisions.

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 two parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. The phrase 'WolvenKit CLI' loosely hints at the `cli` parameter, but `world_builder_root` is never mentioned, nor are expected formats, defaults, or whether either is optional in practice.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Detect') with specific resources ('WolvenKit CLI/importer availability') and adds a reporting scope ('Linux-native conversion boundary'). An agent can tell this is an environment/diagnostic probe rather than a build action, but it never distinguishes itself from near neighbors like wb_build_doctor, wb_worker_doctor or wb_build_prepare, and 'conversion boundary' is unexplained jargon.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The reader must infer from 'Detect ... availability' that this is a preflight/environment check, and must guess whether it belongs before wb_build_prepare, wb_native_preflight, or the worker variants.

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