wb_worker_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that inspection does not depend on the round-trip self-test passing, and 'inspect' implies a read-only diagnostic action, but it does not clarify permissions, side effects, return behavior, or how timeout and worker selection affect execution.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the inspection targets and the key self-test bypass condition. It is reasonably efficient, though the dense technical jargon slightly reduces immediate clarity.

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 0% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves important gaps. An agent knows broadly what is inspected but not what is returned, what the parameters do, or how to choose between this and related worker diagnostics.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. It gives no guidance on what 'worker' means, how to choose a worker, or what 'timeout' controls, leaving both parameters semantically undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Inspect', and names concrete resources: discovered WolvenKit assemblies, serializer/writer API signatures, and the API profile. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as wb_worker_preflight or wb_worker_doctor, but the inspection scope is clear enough to identify the tool's role.

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 phrase 'without requiring the round-trip self-test to pass' implies a usage condition: use this when you need inspection despite a failing self-test. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over wb_worker_preflight, wb_worker_doctor, or wb_worker_build, nor does it state exclusions.

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