build_wheel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds substantive behavioral context (architecture-matched node, deposit into a local repo, downstream discovery by romeo_pip_install), but omits the presence of a confirmation gate (the 'confirm' param) and the fact that this is a long, resource-heavy compile job.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the rationale, then the integration point. No wasted text, though it could be slightly denser given the number of undocumented 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 9-parameter mutating build tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key operational parameters (confirm, resource limits) unexplained, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaning for only 'package' and 'arch' (bonne architecture); the build-resource and control params (confirm, minutes, cpus_per_task, git_url, with_gpu, build_flags, spack_packages) are left entirely undocumented.

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+resource+destination: 'Compile un paquet Python en roue binaire' on an architecture-matched node, deposited into a local repository. It also situates itself relative to the sibling romeo_pip_install, which consumes the produced wheels, so an agent can tell the two apart immediately.

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?

Gives a clear motivating context ('Evite de recompiler les extensions C++/CUDA... a chaque nouvel environnement'), implying when the tool is worth using. It names the downstream tool romeo_pip_install but does not state an explicit alternative to use instead or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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