capstone_build_step

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits. It details progress tracking (creating/updating TodoWrite checklist), edge case handling (Other: re-present options; Skip: advance step), and presentation rules (use AskUserQuestion with headers, show results as chat text). This goes beyond basic annotations and prepares the agent for correct behavior.

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 moderately long but well-organized with clear sections (IMPORTANT, PROGRESS TRACKING, EDGE CASES). It front-loads the main purpose and provides necessary details without unnecessary verbosity. Each section adds value, though some repetition could be trimmed.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is very comprehensive. It covers all actions, progress tracking, presentation guidelines, and edge cases. Missing details like error handling or out-of-order calls are minor gaps, but the description is sufficient for most use cases.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'action' parameter. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of each enum value (e.g., 'confirm' creates a checklist, 'next' updates progress). This contextual mapping helps the agent choose the correct action.

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's purpose: 'Drive your guided capstone build — quiz, build, and advance through 18 progressive steps.' It uses a specific verb ('drive') and identifies the resource ('guided capstone build'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'capstone_build_status' (status check) and 'start_capstone_build' (initialization).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use AskUserQuestion with specific headers ('Answer', 'Action'), how to display quiz results, and how to handle progress tracking via TodoWrite. It also covers edge cases for 'Other' and 'Skip'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, such as when to use 'capstone_build_status' instead.

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