build_mod

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool reports generated DLLs and compiler errors, which implies that it compiles and writes files. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting files, required environment/toolchain, or whether it modifies the project—leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the basic purpose and output but lacks crucial context for a build tool—such as expecting an existing project (from create_mod_project), potential side effects, or how the configuration parameter affects the build. Even with an output schema available, the description remains too minimal to be fully actionable.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. It adds no meaning to project_path or configuration beyond their names and types. This is a significant shortfall for a tool with two parameters, as the agent receives no guidance on how to set them.

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 specifies the action ('Build') on a specific resource ('Muse Dash mod project') and states the output (generated DLLs and compiler errors). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_mod_project (scaffolding) and deploy_mod (deployment), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or workflow order (e.g., 'run after create_mod_project' or 'before deploy_mod'). The usage context is only implied by the verb 'Build'.

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