build_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states 'No build is performed,' indicating a read-only operation, and lists the config contents. It does not mention permissions or output format, but for a read-only info tool, this is adequate.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and contents, and the second clarifying the non-build nature. No filler words; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple info tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects and parameter details. It lists config sections, which provides some indication of return content. Could mention the output is the full config, but overall sufficient.

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 describes the 'project' parameter with a default behavior note. The description adds value by explaining the default resolution: 'Defaults to the server's working directory or TRAE_BUILDER_PROJECT env var.' This goes beyond the schema description.

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 states 'Show the builder config for the current project (parameters, presets, artifacts config, toolchain).' This is a specific verb-resource combination and explicitly lists included sections. It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_run by stating 'No build is performed.'

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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose (view config) and explicitly says 'No build is performed,' which helps differentiate from build_run. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is clear enough for a simple tool.

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