context_build

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that output is compact and token-efficient, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has performance/cost implications on large projects, or what side effects (if any) it may have.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and content are front-loaded, and the ideal-use case is stated economically without redundancy.

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?

The description gives a solid sense of what the output covers, and the schema documents parameters well. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could be more explicit about the return format and any practical constraints, and it does not mention when this tool should be avoided in favor of architecture-related siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents maxDepth and includeScriptSummaries. The description adds the 'compact, token-efficient' framing but does not provide additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool generates an architectural summary of the Roblox project and enumerates what it includes: services, folder layout, key scripts, remotes, tags, and structure. It names a specific action and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like context_get_architecture, project_map, or architecture_analyze.

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 implies a use case: when an AI needs to quickly understand an unfamiliar codebase. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives such as context_get_architecture, project_analyze, or architecture_analyze, and no exclusions are stated.

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