apache_build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to establish safety, but it adds essentially no behavior beyond that. It does not say what a "build option" entry looks like, whether output includes compiler flags, configure arguments, or install prefixes, nor whether the underlying file must exist. For a diagnostic tool, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the read framing and the resource. There is no filler or repetition. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-parameter, optional-argument read tool this could be nearly complete, but the sole parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no output schema to explain the returned structure. Given the crowded apache_* sibling set, the missing scope boundary leaves the agent insufficiently equipped to choose this tool confidently.

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?

The single optional parameter "target" has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all. The agent cannot tell whether "target" means a build target, a host triple, a config file path, or a component selector, nor what happens when it is omitted (schema default is null). The description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Show Apache build options and compiled paths" gives a verb and a resource, so the agent knows it is a read of compile-time configuration. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as apache_version or apache_compiled_modules, which plausibly return overlapping information. The bracketed "[READ]" tag adds nothing the name and resource do not already convey.

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 description contains no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name any alternative tool. With 15 sibling apache_* tools, the agent is left to guess whether build options belong here or in apache_version / apache_compiled_modules. Only the implicit "build" framing hints at scope.

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