Build OPA bundle

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool produces a .tar.gz archive, supports inline signing, optimization levels, custom revision strings, and a WASM target. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting) or required permissions, but the disclosed behaviors are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core functionality.

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 concise, containing only two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key capabilities. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately follows with the output format and notable features, avoiding any extraneous information.

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's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable high-level overview but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or file overwriting behavior. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role but not fully complete for anticipating all outcomes.

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 input schema covers all 10 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description reiterates high-level concepts (optimization, revision, WASM) but does not add unique semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's primary action: building a deployable OPA bundle using `opa build`, specifying the output format (.tar.gz) and key features (inline signing, optimization, revision strings, WASM target). This directly addresses what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations like signing, evaluating, or linting.

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 lists features but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `opa_bundle_sign` or `rego_compile_query`. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions that make this tool appropriate. The usage context is implied but not clearly stated.

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