run_build

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses language dispatch logic, non-arbitrary execution, optional path narrowing, and return format. Includes nuance about mypy being a typecheck proxy.

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?

Concise single paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: main action, dispatch detail, optional param, return format, LSP note. No unnecessary text.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, description covers main behavior, error format, and constraints. Lacks explicit clarity on 'language' parameter meaning (whether override or not), but overall informative.

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%, but description adds meaning: workspace_dir implicit project directory, path optional with narrowing, language is detected (though not explained if override). Partially compensates for missing 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?

Description clearly states the tool compiles a project using detected language. Lists specific commands for each language, distinguishing from siblings like run_tests 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?

States language-specific dispatch and no arbitrary shell execution, implying safe usage. Notes that start_lsp is not required. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but context is clear.

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