docs_build_static

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

Without annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral insight. It states only the basic function ('Build static website') and common hosting targets. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., file overwrites, output directory creation), required permissions, or execution steps (e.g., running a build command). This is insufficient for an agent to understand operational implications.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without superfluous words. Every word contributes to clarity, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It explains the tool's purpose but omits details about the build process (e.g., does it return a status or file path?), output structure, or interaction with the file system. While adequate for a simple tool, it leaves gaps in an agent's understanding for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions for all three parameters (docsPath, framework, outputPath), including an enum for framework. Thus, the description neither harms nor significantly aids parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Build static website for online hosting'. It specifies the action (Build), resource (static website), and target (GitHub Pages, Netlify, Vercel). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_export_pdf (PDF export) and docs_preview (local preview), making the tool's role in the documentation workflow unambiguous.

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 implies usage for deployment ('ready for GitHub Pages...') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like docs_preview for local testing or docs_export_pdf for static file export. There is no when-not or comparison to siblings, leaving room for ambiguity in an agent's decision.

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