stone_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose output behavior: structured errors/warnings and a flash.bin artifact path on success. It says nothing about build duration, whether artifacts/side-effect files are written, or whether failures are returned as errors versus thrown.

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?

Two short sentences, the action front-loaded and the return contract second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or padding.

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?

The return-value sentence is valuable given there is no output schema, but for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing about argument selection and preconditions.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate and it does not. The slash in 'solution/project' hints that either may be supplied, but never clarifies whether they are alternatives, mutually exclusive, or whether one is required.

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+resource ('Compile a solution/project') plus what it returns, so the agent knows exactly what the operation is. Siblings (stone_doctor, stone_solution_state, stone_target_connect) are visibly unrelated, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the target be connected first?), and no exclusions relative to stone_doctor or stone_solution_state. The agent must infer the workflow position of a build step.

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