evaluate_build

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

Without annotations, the description covers key behaviors: it describes the goal format, and states returns per-goal pass/fail with actual values and overall pass. It lacks discussion of error handling or side effects, but is sufficient for typical use.

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 concise (4 sentences) with a clear front-loaded purpose. The example is helpful without being verbose. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (one parameter with nested object) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains behavior and return value structure. It could mention output format details if schema were absent, but it is acceptable.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and no details for the 'goals' parameter. The description fully compensates by explaining the format (bare number or object with min/max) and providing an example, adding essential meaning.

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 checks an active build against numeric goals, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_build or compare_to by focusing on goal validation.

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 gives an example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_to). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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