wb_worker_preflight

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only diagnostic and discloses an output condition ('authoritative native is true only when...'), which is modest value, but says nothing about side effects, prerequisites, whether a failing self-test mutates state, or what the response looks like.

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 compact sentence with no padding, so it is not verbose. But the semicolon-joined second clause is dense and jargon-laden, and the key actionable fact (what the test checks) is buried behind unexplained acronyms.

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, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. For a preflight/self-test tool whose whole value is telling the agent whether a native build path is usable, the description should say what failure looks like and what to do next; it does neither.

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% for two parameters ('worker' and 'timeout') and the description mentions neither. It does not say what a worker identifier looks like, whether it is required (required count is 0), what units the timeout uses, or what happens on omission.

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 leading clause 'Run the worker self-test' gives a specific verb and resource, which is enough to distinguish it from the many build/generate siblings. However, the second clause ('authoritative native is true only when RED default serialization and JSON-to-CR2W both pass') is opaque domain jargon that doesn't clarify what the check actually verifies, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like wb_native_preflight, wb_worker_doctor, or wb_worker_inspect.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. It does not say whether this should be run before wb_worker_build, instead of wb_native_preflight, or when to prefer wb_worker_doctor. The only directive content is an internal pass condition, not a usage rule.

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