message_build

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions cost. Lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether the build must be running, if instruction is synchronous, or any side effects.

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?

Single sentence plus cost note, no redundant information. Front-loaded with verb+resource.

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 simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, description is nearly complete but lacks prerequisite info (e.g., build must be running) and error cases.

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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). Description adds 'Cost: 0 credits' but no additional parameter meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Send' and resource 'a running build', distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_company (start), get_build (status), stop_build (terminate).

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?

Implies use after a build is running, and sibling names provide context. However, no explicit when/when-not or alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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