build_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers. It discloses output parsing behavior (unique errors first with file/line/code, repeat counts), compiler support (MSVC, clang, gcc, CMake, ninja), and fallback behavior when nothing parses (tail of raw output instead of misleading 'no errors'). It also warns about restrictions on command execution. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 multi-paragraph but every sentence earns its place: core purpose first, then rationale for preferring it, then parsing details, then constraints. No fluff. The structure moves from high-level intent to operational specifics without repetition.

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 complexity—a build tool with parsing logic and restrictions—the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, what commands are allowed, what output to expect, and failure fallback. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return types. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'command' parameter thoroughly—listing allowed drivers and constraints. However, it does not address 'timeout_seconds' or 'working_directory'. Their names are self-explanatory and defaults are in the schema, but the description adds no additional detail about their behavior or defaults. Still, the most complex parameter is deeply documented, so it earns a strong score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a build command and return only the diagnostics that matter.' It clearly distinguishes itself from run_powershell by explaining the parsing/deduplication behavior, and the scope (build drivers) is explicit. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Prefer this over run_powershell for anything that compiles' and explains why. It also enumerates the allowed build drivers and states constraints (exactly one command, no pipelines/redirection/separators outside quotes). This gives the agent clear decision rules and boundary conditions.

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