build_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains timeout behavior but does not mention side effects (e.g., file modifications), destructive potential, or prerequisites. Key information about the actual command execution is absent.

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 only two sentences, which is concise. However, the first sentence is somewhat redundant. The structure is adequate but could be improved by front-loading the core purpose.

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?

Given the 8 parameters and lack of schema descriptions, the description covers timing aspects but leaves out what the tool fundamentally does (runs a build command) and basic parameter explanations. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for timing parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, etc.) and on_timeout behavior, but does not explain the purpose of 'path' or 'command' parameters, leaving gaps.

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 mentions 'build_project' but does not explicitly state that it runs a build command. It is vague about what 'building a project' entails, and does not distinguish it from other command execution tools like exec_command or execute_command.

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 clear guidance on when to use different on_timeout values (continue_background for long work, kill/return_partial for synchronous work). However, it does not compare this tool to sibling tools, so guidance on when to use build_project instead of other command tools is missing.

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