ws_build_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs a specific script and performs build and link actions, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., file modifications, overwrites), authorization needs, or whether it is safe or destructive. The description is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides additional context (script path). No extraneous 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 tool with simple parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the action and the underlying script. It lacks details on prerequisites or expected outcomes, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema; it mentions 'core' as default alias, which is already documented. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool builds the UI library and npm-links it into the consumer app. It uses specific verbs ('Build' and 'npm-link') and resources ('UI library', 'consumer app'). The purpose is distinct from sibling 'ws_build_only', which presumably only builds without linking.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ws_build_only'. While the implication is that this tool is for building and linking, there is no guidance on prerequisites, contexts where linking is needed, or when to avoid using it.

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