iota_move_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool builds and reports results but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies files, what happens on compilation errors, or any performance/rate limit considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably performs compilation.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No unnecessary elaboration or redundancy is present.

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 the complexity of a compilation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'compilation results' include, how errors are handled, or the tool's safety profile. For a build operation that could have side effects, this leaves too many unanswered questions.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain what 'Move package directory' means, provide examples, or clarify the default behavior. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but no additional value 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 action ('Build') and target ('Move package') with the outcome ('report compilation results'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'iota_move_publish_unsigned' or 'iota_move_test_coverage' that also operate on Move packages, which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when compilation is needed, or how this differs from other Move-related tools like 'iota_move_publish_unsigned' or 'iota_move_test_coverage' in the sibling list.

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