Build Sailfish RPM

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is asynchronous, ordinary builds share mb2 snapshots, custom inputs or explicit keys use an isolated original target, and local_sdk defaults to the live installed SDK with a coderus Docker-image fallback only for explicit named releases. These details help an agent understand execution nuances.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds two dense but relevant sentences. It is appropriately sized and contains no obvious filler, though the snapshot and SDK-fallback details are packed with jargon that could be clarified.

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?

For a complex 22-parameter build tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the required project_path, how to monitor the asynchronous build (e.g., via sailfish_build_status), expected return values, or most configuration options. It leaves major gaps for an agent to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 41%, so the description must compensate but does not. It mentions paths.local_sdk defaults and hints at snapshot_key behavior via 'explicit key,' but it leaves most of the 22 parameters undocumented, including arch, clean, debug, backend, release, all_arches, artifacts_dir, and many others.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start an asynchronous RPM build.' This clearly identifies the tool's function as initiating an RPM build asynchronously. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sailfish_build_preflight, sailfish_build_status, or sailfish_build_cancel, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives some behavioral context about snapshot sharing and isolated targets for custom inputs, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sailfish_build_preflight or sailfish_build_status. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines, and no alternatives are named.

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