Project Build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that failed builds raise with compiler diagnostics passed through verbatim, including file, line, column, and source. It also discloses that the tool reports extension usage and TurboWarp-only flags, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds unique value: the action, the CLI alternative, failure behavior, and extension reporting. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the build action, error behavior, and extension reporting. It does not mention prerequisites or filesystem side effects, but those are likely covered by sibling tools like project_check_toolchain. Overall, complete enough for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100% for the single path parameter, and the schema already documents that it defaults to the active project. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Compile the project to .sb3 with goboscript') with clear resource and output format. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the build/compile action, which is not duplicated by any sibling.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this rather than running the goboscript CLI, giving clear guidance against a common alternative. Does not mention sibling tools explicitly, but the context is sufficient for when to use it; no exclusions are stated.

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