xae_build

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default triggers a File.SaveAll side effect before building, and it discloses what is returned (success flag, error/warning items with file:line, output tail). This side-effect disclosure is exactly the sort of non-obvious trait annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: the core action, the return contract, and the alternate mode. Dense but each clause carries information; the parentheticals are compact rather than redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-value description is bonus rather than a gap, and the build/save/check behaviors are all surfaced. The only omission is semantics for clean vs rebuild, which is minor given their self-evident names and the otherwise complete behavioral picture.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains check_all_objects (runs PLC Check all objects, compiles unused POUs) and save_first (SaveAll first by default), but is silent on clean and rebuild, leaving half the parameters to be inferred from their titles.

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 and resource ('Build the solution') and immediately qualifies the default behavior ('File.SaveAll first by default'), so the agent knows exactly what operation runs. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but no sibling competes for the same build action, so clarity is high without explicit differentiation.

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?

It explains the alternate mode ('check_all_objects=true runs PLC Check all objects instead'), which is a form of routing guidance within the tool. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus alternatives such as xae_deploy or proj_lint, so usage is only implied.

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