wb_worker_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that a ZIP may be written (a side effect distinct from the read-oriented 'Collect'), but not where it is written, whether existing files are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or how long collection may take.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the primary action and appending the optional ZIP write. Its brevity is the only issue — it is efficient but leaves too much unsaid rather than wasting words.

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 four-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to call safely. It also fails to position the tool against the many similarly named worker/build/compat siblings an agent must choose between.

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 coverage is 0%, so all four parameters (dotnet, output, worker, timeout) are undocumented in structured data. The description only loosely implies meaning for dotnet, worker, and output; it says nothing about the output path format, acceptable worker identifiers, or the units and default of timeout.

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 names a specific verb ('Collect') and resource ('.NET/worker diagnostics'), plus the optional ZIP output, so the agent knows what the tool produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like wb_worker_inspect, wb_build_doctor, and wb_compat_scan, which an agent would need to pick correctly.

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 only usage signal is the phrase 'for deferred compatibility testing,' which hints at a scenario but never states when to call this versus wb_worker_inspect, wb_worker_preflight, wb_build_doctor, or wb_compat_scan. No prerequisites, no when-not guidance, and no alternative routing are given despite heavy sibling overlap.

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