oss_dataflow_build

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most costly behavior: the first build is slow and results are cached afterwards. It omits permissions/prerequisites, whether a build replaces an existing CPG, and what the caller gets back — significant gaps for an expensive long-running mutation.

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?

Three terse clauses with no filler, and the expensive-first-run caveat is front-loaded where it matters most. Density is good, though the telegraphic style pushes some needed detail out rather than compressing it.

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 an expensive, cache-aware build tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much open: rebuild semantics, prerequisite state (repo opened via oss_repo_open), expected duration/result, and how it relates to oss_dataflow_query are all unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It covers only `language` (omitted → main project language) and says nothing about `rebuild`, whose interaction with the caching note is precisely the ambiguous case, nor about what project_id must refer to.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: builds a CPG for dataflow analysis using Joern, which clearly separates it from the sibling oss_dataflow_query (query an already-built graph) and from oss_inventory_build. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"처음 한 번 오래 걸리고 이후엔 캐시" implies the call is a one-time prerequisite that later reads reuse, which hints at when to invoke it. There is no explicit sequencing instruction (e.g. build before oss_dataflow_query) and no statement of when not to call it or how rebuild interacts with the cache.

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