build_daysim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cloning, building, the fallback when git/cmake are missing, the success output (bin_dir), and the licensing reason for not bundling. It also clarifies that it does not set the environment variable but instructs the user to do so.

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 three sentences with no fluff, front-loading the purpose and method, then explaining behavior and licensing. Every sentence adds value and the structure is logical.

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?

The tool is complex and has an output schema, but the description covers the key outcome (bin_dir) and licensing. However, it omits parameter explanations and usage guidance, making it incomplete for an agent to decide when to use it and how to pass parameters effectively.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only addresses 'run' (executes if true and git+cmake present), leaving 'src_dir' and 'work_dir' completely unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 verb 'Build' with the specific resource 'Daysim (ds_shortterm + epw2wea)' and the method 'clone master + headless arm64 CMake'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like daysim_status and build_report by being specifically about building Daysim from source.

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 explains behavior (run=True executes if git+cmake present, otherwise returns command plan) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like daysim_status. It implies usage when Daysim is not present ('Daysim is NOT bundled') but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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