coding_build_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not indicate whether the action is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The name 'build_page' suggests mutability, but this is not confirmed.

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 relatively concise with a clear Args section. However, the first sentence could be improved by front-loading the purpose rather than repeating the action name. Overall, it is efficient without unnecessary verbosity.

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 that there is an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about the purpose of 'build_page', what inputs are expected for the JSON, and any constraints or dependencies. This makes it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by describing 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. However, it provides no examples, format constraints, or guidance on valid values, which limits its utility.

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 states it runs the coding domain agent action 'build_page', which is clear but somewhat tautological. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like coding_build_codegraph or page_builder_create, but it does specify routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without context for appropriate use.

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