buildagents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return payload ('generationId plus the 3 team designs') and the two-step workflow, which is real added value. However, for a generative tool it says nothing about cost/latency, whether generationId persists, or what happens if the problem statement is too vague — gaps that matter for a single-shot LLM generation call.

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 opening two sentences are well-structured and front-loaded, but roughly half the text is a keyword-stuffed alias list ('BuildAgents, Build Agents, build agent team, build an agent team, design an agent team, ... AgentuKomanda, Agentų komanda, kurti agentus'). These near-duplicates are padding that does not earn their place and dilute the routing signal.

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?

A simple one-parameter tool with no output schema; the description covers the output shape (generationId + 3 designs) and the next step, which is what an agent needs to chain correctly. Minor gaps remain around pattern selection trade-offs, but nothing essential to a correct invocation is missing.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('who, what, desired outcome', 1-2000 chars), so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates 'for a business problem' and adds no syntax, example, or quality bar beyond what the schema already gives.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('design 3 specialized AI agent teams for a business problem') and adds differentiating detail: each team uses a different coordination pattern, with the pattern families enumerated. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming generate_full_prompt as the follow-up step, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('use this tool whenever the user mentions...') and what to do next ('call generate_full_prompt with the chosen team'), which is genuine routing to the sibling. It lacks a when-not condition (e.g. when the user already has a team design and should skip straight to prompt generation), and the trigger guidance is expressed as keyword trivia rather than semantic context.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the generated artifact contains (deliverables, file paths, collaboration instructions, synthesis step) and implies the precondition of a prior generate_agent_teams call. It says nothing about failure modes (invalid/stale generationId, out-of-range teamIndex), whether the call mutates server state, or whether repeated calls with the same inputs return the same prompt.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and dense with real information. The trailing trigger-keyword block is roughly half the total text and consists of near-duplicate variants ('agent team', 'AgentTeam', 'AgentuKomanda', 'Agentų komanda'), which consumes space without clarifying behavior.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description does the important work of describing the return value's contents and its place in a two-step workflow. What remains missing is error/edge behavior and confirmation that the call is a non-destructive generation step rather than something that persists or consumes the generation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds provenance for generationId (comes from generate_agent_teams) and narrows teamIndex to '0, 1, or 2'. That narrowing conflicts with the schema's maximum of 10, which is a discrepancy an agent has no way to resolve from the text alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('generate the complete copy-paste-ready Claude Code prompt for that team') and explicitly positions itself as 'step 2' consuming the generationId from generate_agent_teams. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either schema.

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 sequencing constraint is clear: it must be called after generate_agent_teams with a generationId from that call, and requires a teamIndex for one of the returned teams. However, the long 'trigger keywords' list is offered as the condition for using this tool while containing terms ('BuildAgents', 'agent team', 'design an agent team') that apply equally to the step-1 sibling, so it does not actually route between them.

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