wb_build_status

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 not say whether the check is read-only, whether it merely reports findings or fails hard, what it does when expected outputs are missing, or whether it requires an active live session or prior import.

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?

It is a single sentence with no padding, which is good, but the terseness comes at the cost of clarity — dense domain jargon is packed in without setup. It is front-loaded with the verb but not with the agent-relevant information.

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 undescribed required parameter, the description should explain what the check reports and what a negative result means. It says nothing about return values or failure behavior, 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?

There is one parameter, 'workspace', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. With an undocumented, required string parameter, the description provides no meaning about what value is expected or how it scopes the check.

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 verb 'check' plus the object 'expected streamingblock/sector/device outputs' gives a rough idea of a post-import verification step, but the phrasing is jargon-heavy and vague about what is actually produced or compared. It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as wb_build_verify, wb_validate, wb_native_verify, or wb_build_doctor.

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 clause 'after WolvenKit Object Spawner import' implies a sequencing context, but there is no statement of when an agent should choose this over the many other verification/build tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would have to guess at the intended workflow position.

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