Start Android Build

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the build runs detached under nohup on a remote host, implying a fire-and-forget start that must be tracked separately, plus the project_dir configuration dependency.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the host/mode and prerequisite clauses. It is compact with no filler, though the prerequisite clause is packed in and slightly dense.

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, the description could usefully explain that the call returns a job id (job_id param is described as stable/autogenerated) and how to follow up via sailfish_android_build_status. It covers the start semantics and project_dir dependency but omits the async lifecycle linkage an agent needs to complete the task.

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 high (88%), so the schema already documents nearly all eight parameters, including the shell_command example and the project_dir default. The description only reinforces the project_dir prerequisite, adding no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 stands.

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 (Start) and resource (remote Android/AppSupport build) and adds the execution mode (under nohup on a configured build host). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling status/cancel tools by the 'Start' verb, but it never names those siblings to sharpen the routing.

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 prerequisite 'project_dir must be configured for the host or supplied' gives conditional context for a successful call, which is useful. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. when to reach for sailfish_build_rpm or the preflight tool) and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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