eas_build

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Trigger EAS cloud build', omitting critical details such as whether the build is asynchronous, if it requires a running Expo CLI or authentication, and what happens to the agent during wait mode. Potential side effects (e.g., cost, resource usage) are not mentioned.

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 short sentence, which is concise and to the point. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices valuable information that could be included in a slightly longer description. It earns its place but could be more informative without being verbose.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the agent can expect after triggering the build (e.g., return of a build ID), how to use the wait and non_interactive parameters effectively, or prerequisites like environment setup. The description leaves significant gaps for a complex cloud build operation.

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 with parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'iOS/Android' which aligns with the platform enum, but does not provide additional semantic context like how profiles map to eas.json or implications of clearing cache.

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 explicitly states 'Trigger EAS cloud build for iOS/Android', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly indicates the action and platform scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like eas_build_status or eas_submit, which could cause confusion for an agent deciding which tool to use.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of sibling tools like expo_build_local_start, eas_build_status, and eas_submit, the description should clarify the context (e.g., cloud vs local builds, triggering vs checking status). This omission makes it hard for an AI agent to select the correct tool.

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