Build Ballerina project

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that it verifies the Ballerina toolchain first and does not modify source files. It also discloses that it reports success or diagnostics, providing useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: what it does, the toolchain check, and the offline behavior with the non-modification guarantee.

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?

The description is complete for a build tool with no output schema. It covers prerequisites (scaffolded project, toolchain check), behavior (offline, no source modification), and return value (success or diagnostics).

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions offline=true, but this exactly restates the schema description. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 runs `bal build` in a scaffolded project and reports success or compiler diagnostics. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like mq_scaffold_project (create) and mq_deploy_project (deploy).

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?

It provides clear context by specifying 'in a scaffolded project' and the offline option for cached dependencies, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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