Production build

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return content (raw/gzip/brotli per file) and a behavioral constraint ('leaks' must be empty). It does not describe side effects on disk or runtime cost, but for an annotated tool this is above the bar.

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 tight sentences with the core action and output front-loaded and zero filler. It is close to optimal, though the reference to a 'leaks' field is slightly opaque without surrounding context about the report object.

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 no output schema, the description usefully describes the return payload (size report fields plus the 'leaks' check), which is the key missing piece. It omits what a build mutates on disk, but the essentials for correct invocation are present for a single-optional-param 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?

With one wholly documented parameter (schema coverage 100%), the schema already explains 'root' fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('build for production') and clarifies the primary output (a per-file size report). This clearly separates it from the sibling maintenance tools such as run_tests, fuzz, and the game_* tools. An agent can identify its role without opening the 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?

The phrase 'for production' implies the context in which to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., vs. run_tests or a dev build). The agent has to infer that this is the release-build step.

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