game_build_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey a multi-stage pipeline and implies side effects through 'implements server/client modules.' However, it does not disclose failure behavior, side effects on existing game state, prerequisites, or what 'anchors geometry' entails beyond the name.

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, efficiently structured sentence that uses arrows to convey sequencing. Each stage earns its place, and the '[WORKFLOW]' prefix immediately sets expectations. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 composite workflow with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a useful high-level pipeline but leaves gaps: what the tool returns, how it handles failures, and what level of detail 'spec' requires. It is enough for an agent to recognize the tool, but not fully sufficient to invoke it confidently in complex scenarios.

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 both parameters are already minimally documented. The tool description does not meaningfully expand on what featureName or spec should contain, though the workflow stages hint at what a spec must cover. This is adequate but adds little beyond the schema.

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 this is an end-to-end composite workflow and enumerates its stages: analyze, plan, implement, anchor geometry, verify. It is more specific than a tautology and stands apart from narrower siblings like feature_implement or project_analyze. However, it lacks a crisp single verb+resource phrasing, relying on a stage list.

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 this tool is for building a full feature end-to-end rather than performing an individual step. That usage context is evident from the workflow framing, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling tools like feature_implement, feature_verify, or architecture_plan, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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