build_project

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

Discloses important side effects: compilation kills the CLASS 2 IDE and download pings the PLC first. However, it does not explain consequences of ping failure, loader behavior, or whether state changes are reversible, leaving some behavioral aspects undocumented.

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?

Very concise and front-loaded. The core purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by clear behavioral warnings. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Adequately covers inputs and key side effects, but with no output schema it does not describe expected return values, success/failure indications, or error handling. Given the moderate complexity and multiple parameters, this leaves some contextual gaps.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters, and the description adds useful semantic details such as 'compile only', 'download only', default timeout, and using the connection saved in the .lss file. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the basic schema.

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?

States a specific action: compiles a CLASS 2 project or downloads it to the PLC, clearly distinguishing the two main operations. The resource and verbs are explicit and differentiate this tool from related siblings.

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?

Describes what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like apply_project_changes, deploy_all, or manage_class2. No use cases or selection criteria are mentioned.

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