bridge_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the build is unsigned (no signing key used), the output folder is kept free of signatures/keys, and building does not load the mod. It also explains the rationale for not auto-attaching it. This is good behavioral disclosure for a build tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by concise paragraphs explaining the bridge's nature, the unsigned build, and the non-loading behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema details are provided (though output schema exists), the description covers the essential context: what the bridge is, how it's built, and what happens after building. It could mention the output location or how to check the result, but the description is fairly complete for a zero-parameter build tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does explain the build context and output behavior, which is useful. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds relevant context about the build process.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Pack the bridge mod from this repository's own sources.' It specifies the verb (pack/build), the resource (the bridge mod), and the source (this repository's own sources). It also distinguishes the bridge from the project's own mod, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like mod_build.

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 description explains when to use this tool: to build the bridge mod, which is the server's own mod shared across projects. It clarifies that building does not load it, and attaching it remains a profile decision. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, though the context implies it's for the bridge specifically.

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