cg_build_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: no browser is launched and it runs in milliseconds (static, cheap, non-interactive). However, it never states that this is a read-only inspection, what severity/result shape it produces, or what happens on failure, which are the traits an agent needs for a checker tool.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the purpose then the distinguishing trait ('No browser, milliseconds'). Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly self-sufficient: the list of checks effectively tells the agent what is being validated. It stops short of describing the result format or severity levels, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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% and the single 'path' parameter already documents that it accepts the game root, a build folder (dist, build/web), or the release zip. The description only echoes 'a built game or its zip' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Static portal checks of a built game or its zip', followed by a concrete enumeration of what is inspected (size, file count, index.html at root, etc.). This clearly separates it from a runtime concern, but it does not name or contrast with the siblings cg_sdk_session or cg_frame_audit, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 browser, milliseconds' implies a fast pre-flight/static context and implicitly contrasts with the runtime siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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