build_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning a structured build result with error details, but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., workspace modification, resource consumption) or specific behavioral traits beyond the return type.

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 concise with a single sentence and a clause, no filler. However, it could be slightly more structured or front-loaded with key information like the required parameter.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the build process, required dependencies, or what constitutes the 'structured build result'. Incomplete for the complexity of a build tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions. Default values are already annotated in the schema. Score at baseline 3, as the description does not enhance understanding of parameter interactions or 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 the tool builds a KMM application for Android or iOS, specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions the return type (structured build result with error details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clean_project or install_app.

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, no prerequisites or exclusions provided. Sibling tools like clean_project or run_unit_tests exist but no differentiation is given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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