build_analyze

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the key trait that nothing is executed and that safety warnings are surfaced. It stops short of describing scope limits (e.g., manifest formats recognized, what happens when no manifest exists, whether it recurses) or the shape of the report.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the output categories listed compactly. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is inspected and roughly what is reported. The main residual gap is the return format, which the absence of an output schema leaves partially unspecified.

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 a single optional parameter whose schema description already states the default ('defaults to the configured workspace'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning about path resolution or behavior for that parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (inspect build manifests) and enumerates what gets reported: build systems, scripts, targets, toolchain hints, safety warnings. The clause 'without executing commands' implicitly separates it from the sibling build_run, though it never names that sibling.

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 read-only, non-executing framing tells the agent this is the safe inspection option, which implies when to prefer it over build_run. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance about relationship to look-alikes such as toolchain_probe or decomp_config_inspect.

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