build

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

The description says it builds without activating and returns store path, but does not disclose side effects like writing to the Nix store, resource usage, or idempotency. With no annotations, more context is needed for safe invocation.

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?

Extremely concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a function, but it could be slightly expanded without becoming 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?

For a build tool with two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain parameter behavior, defaults, or edge cases, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without trial and error.

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 has two parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention 'flake_uri' or 'mode', leaving the agent to guess their meaning and constraints. No value added beyond schema structure.

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 verb 'Build' and the resource 'full system/HM closure', with the specific constraint 'without activating it'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'switch' which likely activate, and others like 'check', 'diff' that are different operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for building without activation but does not mention when to chose it over 'switch' or 'check'. Sibling names suggest different scopes but no comparison.

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