trigger_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-obvious mechanism (empty commit + push), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't state whether this creates an actual commit on the branch, whether it can be undone, permission requirements, or side effects on the git history.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, zero waste. Efficiently conveys both purpose and mechanism.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the mechanism but omits behavioral details (reversibility, history impact, permissions) that an agent needs to invoke safely. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 branch parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (trigger) and resource (build) with clear mechanism. Distinguishable from siblings like get_build_history, though the mechanism description (empty commit + push) overlaps conceptually with git_push/git_commit siblings without clarifying the relationship.

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 usage (shortcut for triggering builds) but doesn't say when to use this vs. manually chaining git_commit + git_push, which are sibling tools. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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