octri_preview_sdk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that no build is consumed and that the response is paths-only by default to keep it small, but it says nothing about permissions/auth, whether generation has side effects or writes anything to disk, or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core capability and the cost-saving constraint are front-loaded, and the secondary use case ('fast loop') follows.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return shape (file paths, optionally contents). For a 4-parameter, no-annotation tool it is nearly complete, but it omits whether previewed output persists or is discarded, which an agent would reasonably want to know.

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 100%, so all four parameters (language, project_id, path_filter, include_content) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a light echo of include_content ('optionally contents') and the single-language scope, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Generate) and resource (one language / the SDK output), plus what is returned (emitted file paths and optionally contents). The phrase 'WITHOUT spending a build' effectively separates it from octri_trigger_build, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'This is the fast loop for generator changes' tells the agent the context in which to reach for this tool versus a full build. It does not name the alternative tool or state explicit exclusions (e.g. when a real build is still required).

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