project_build_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add one important guarantee: '失败不发布中间工程' (on failure, intermediate project is not published), implying transactional behavior. However, it does not disclose success outputs, whether the source project is mutated, required permissions, or what artifacts are produced, so transparency is partial.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the composite workflow and ends with the critical failure behavior. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause contributes decision-relevant information.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential orchestration-level context and the key failure guarantee. Still, it leaves unspecified the return or artifact details, execution order, and success behavior, though the rich schema covers parameter-level facts.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does reinforce how the pipeline stages map to meaningful parameter groups, particularly that patch hashes relate to converted IL, but the detailed semantics are already well documented in the input 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 names a specific composite workflow: optional full LD conversion, multi-file patching, factory compile, and packaging in one call. This distinguishes it from the granular sibling tools like il_batch_patch_copy, native_compile_copy, and package_project. It stops short of an explicit verb-resource statement about copying or building into dest, so it's clear but not maximally precise.

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 phrase '一次调用' clearly signals that this tool is for combining multiple pipeline stages into a single invocation rather than calling siblings separately. This provides clear usage context, but the description does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name specific alternative sibling tools.

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