build_ps2

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose useful safety context — an allowlisted runner and a confirmation/write-gate requirement. It stops short of saying what the build mutates, whether it overwrites workspace state, how long it runs, or what a failure looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with the action first and the gating requirements second — no filler. Slightly denser phrasing ('existing allowlisted build runner', 'RETRACE_ALLOW_WRITE=1') assumes knowledge but is efficient.

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 side-effecting build tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage across four parameters, the description is too thin. It never explains what portPath expects, what args are passed to, or what the caller gets back.

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% for four parameters, and the description only alludes to 'confirm' without explaining its semantics. portPath, command (the make/cmake enum), and args are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess.

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 and resource: building a PS2 port workspace via an existing allowlisted build runner. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like build_run, build_analyze, or package_ps2_iso, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

It gives real preconditions (explicit confirmation, RETRACE_ALLOW_WRITE=1) that imply when this is callable, but it never says when to prefer it over build_run or other build-related siblings, nor what happens if confirmation is missing.

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