Build project images

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

Annotations indicate it's neither read-only nor destructive, which is consistent with a build operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., whether it rebuilds all images, overwrites tags, or requires existing project configuration). Minimal enrichment beyond 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?

Single sentence, direct and front-loaded. Avoids verbosity but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming wordy. Effectively communicates core purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not mention what the tool returns or how to interpret results. For a build action, agents need to know if it returns a build ID, status, or error. Also lacks context on how it fits with sibling build tools.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('Environment ID' and 'Project ID'). The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Build images for a Docker Compose project' clearly states the action (build) and resource (images, scoped to a Docker Compose project). It differentiates from sibling tools like arcane_build_image by specifying project-level building, though not explicitly.

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 such as arcane_build_image or other build tools. Prerequisites, typical use cases, or decision criteria are absent.

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