build_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the incremental default, the rebuild_all override, the automatic fallback to a full rebuild when 'Build changes function not available' occurs, and that a 'note' is added when that fallback happens. This is substantial behavioral detail beyond the bare schema.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence gives the core behavior and return values, the second states the transfer prerequisite, and the final paragraph explains the important edge case. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 single-optional-boolean-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers the parameter semantics, the return values, the operational requirement, and a realistic error scenario with the tool's automatic response. An agent has everything it needs to call this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the rebuild_all parameter. It does: rebuild_all=True means full rebuild, default is incremental, and it explicitly reassures the agent that the flag is not needed on first build. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Build the project' with clear variants (incremental by default, full rebuild with rebuild_all=True). It also describes the return content (build state and Control Expert output text with errors/warnings), which helps differentiate it from the sibling build_remoteconnect_logic_copy.

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 provides explicit context: a successful build is required before transferring to a PLC or simulator, and the default call is safe even on a fresh project. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the stated prerequisite and auto-fallback behavior give clear operational guidance.

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