Build OPA bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the build action and output format but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file overwrite), authentication needs, failure modes, or performance characteristics. The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the main action and output format. Every phrase adds information without redundancy. It is appropriately short for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 10 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on return values (e.g., whether the tool returns a file path or success message). It does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., `entrypoints` required for WASM or optimization). Schema descriptions fill some gaps, but the description could be more comprehensive.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds value by contextualizing key parameters: it links 'optimization' to the `optimize` parameter, 'custom revision strings' to `revision`, 'WASM target' to `target`, and 'optional inline signing' to `signingKey`, `signingAlg`, `claimsFile`. This helps an agent understand parameter usage beyond the 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?

The description clearly states that the tool builds a deployable OPA bundle using `opa build`, specifies the output format (`.tar.gz`), and lists key features (inline signing, optimization, revision, WASM). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `opa_bundle_sign` (a separate signing step).

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 implies when to use this tool (for building bundles with optional signing and optimization) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No exclusion criteria or comparison with siblings like `rego_eval` or `rego_check` is given.

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