build_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Build the Hugo site for production' but does not disclose what build entails (compilation, asset processing), side effects (overwrites public folder?), or required permissions. This is insufficient.

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 (one short sentence) but at the expense of valuable information. It lacks details that would justify such brevity; effective conciseness requires front-loading essential content, which is missing.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide necessary context for a build tool. It omits behavior (e.g., minification, destination directory), prerequisites, and side effects, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It does not explain site_path, minify, destination, or clean_destination, leaving the agent with no guidance on parameter usage.

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 'Build the Hugo site for production', providing a specific verb (Build), resource (Hugo site), and context (for production). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_site, deploy_site, and start_preview.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not differentiate from deploy_site or start_preview, nor does it mention prerequisites like having Hugo installed or site configured.

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