build_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or any destructive potential. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 succinct sentence with no extraneous words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters, trading conciseness for completeness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide contextual completeness about prerequisites, return values, or effects. It does not, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full scope.

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 0%, yet the description adds no information about the three parameters (env_id, project_id, agent_token). It fails to explain their roles or defaults, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 uses the verb 'Build' and specifies the resource as 'a Compose project's images', which clearly indicates the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_image' or 'pull_project_images', though the context of 'Compose project' adds specificity.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or contextual hints. This omission forces the agent to rely on trial and error.

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