xae_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that the tool waits for completion by default. It does not explain what happens on build failure, whether the tool is destructive, what output is returned, or any side effects like project file modification. Critical information is missing.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the main action but omits any secondary details. While not verbose, it is too terse to be considered well-structured for a tool with three parameters.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the build process, error handling, or how this tool fits into the broader TwinCAT ecosystem. The sibling tools suggest a rich context, but the description fails to leverage or clarify it.

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 should compensate. It only hints at the waitForFinish parameter (default wait). The action enum values are self-explanatory, but the timeoutMs parameter is entirely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning 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 the tool performs clean/build/rebuild actions on the active solution configuration, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like xae or xae_command, and the phrase 'active solution configuration' may assume domain knowledge.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when to choose clean vs build vs rebuild, or any conditions that would make this tool inappropriate. This is a significant gap.

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