native_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the output artifact is immutable, that imported code is syntax-checked rather than executed (a safety-relevant behavior), and that no browser state is launched or modified. It does not disclose disk-write side effects, permissions, or what happens on a failed build, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety and exclusion clauses. No filler, no repetition of the name or schema.

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?

Behavior is described reasonably well for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, but the single required parameter is unexplained and there is no indication of what a successful build returns or where the artifact goes. For a build tool whose only input is a revision guard, that omission is a meaningful gap.

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?

There is one required parameter, expectedRevision, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not mention it at all. The name strongly implies an optimistic-concurrency/revision-guard semantic that is never explained, leaving the agent to guess how to populate or handle a mismatch.

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 verb and resource (build an immutable native extension from enabled library scripts) and adds the key scoping detail that it syntax-checks without executing imported code. The final clause distinguishes it from native_launch explicitly, so an agent can route correctly without opening the sibling schemas.

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 clause 'Does not launch or change the current browser' functions as an implicit exclusion that routes the agent toward native_launch for the launch case, giving clear context. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming the sibling directly, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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