get_build

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description clearly indicates this is a read-only operation (returns current state). It is non-destructive and safe. However, it does not explicitly state that it performs no side effects or that it requires specific permissions.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose and output without extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which presumably details the structure), the description provides a sufficient high-level summary. It lists the three main components (piece list with positions, inventory, dimensions), which is adequate for a query tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable as there are none to document.

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 states the tool returns the current build state including piece list, positions, inventory, and dimensions. It implies a read operation but lacks a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'export_build' (export) and 'place_brick' (mutation).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'view_layers' for layers, 'list_parts' for just parts). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for use.

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