build_csharp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful context: isolated scratch output, no effect on the editor's loaded assembly, package restore on first build, and typical incremental build time. This goes beyond the annotation flags and discloses the tool's safety and performance characteristics, with no contradictions.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, safety, auto-detection, prerequisites, performance, and usage trigger. No filler or redundant restating 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 compile-check tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, this description is complete: it states purpose, output format, safety profile, system requirements, performance expectations, and when to use it. An agent has all the context needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds useful guidance by saying the .csproj is auto-detected from the project if omitted, which clarifies the optional csproj parameter's behavior beyond the schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Compile-check' plus the resource 'C#/.NET Godot project', names the underlying command `dotnet build`, and specifies the return format (structured diagnostics with file:line:col + CS-code). It also differentiates itself from the GDScript compile-gate (write_script), which does not cover C#.

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 last sentence explicitly states when to use it: 'Use after editing .cs'. It also contrasts with write_script's GDScript compile-gate by noting it does not cover C#, so an agent understands this tool is the C# alternative. Mention of the .NET SDK requirement and isolated build helps the agent decide if the conditions are right.

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