Build Project

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

Discloses traits annotations cannot express: a 30-minute wait with the operation continuing past it, server-wide blocking of other requests until the IDE responds, the prerequisite of a running IDE with the project open, and the critical caveat that a success has been reported with no app written so the artifact must be verified on disk. Annotations only say non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds far more.

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?

Purpose first, then usage gate, then return behavior, then the failure caveat, then operational constraints — each sentence carries a distinct fact an agent needs. Dense but no filler or repetition of the title.

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 long-running mutation with no output schema, it covers everything an agent must know to invoke and interpret it: return values in both success and failure cases, invisible runtime errors, truncation/blocking semantics, and environmental prerequisites. Nothing material is left implicit.

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%, with both parameters (reveal, build_type) fully documented including the enum-like build target codes, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Builds the open Xojo project into a standalone app') and immediately contrasts with the sibling run_project, which is the tool most likely to be confused with it. An agent can distinguish build vs. run without reading either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit gate ('Call it only when the user asks for a build') plus a preferred alternative and its rationale ('offer run_project first: a run catches errors a build misses'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that prevents misuse.

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