delimit_story_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 adequately discloses the conditional behavior: without Storybook, it returns setup guidance; with configuration, it builds automatically. This reveals the adaptive nature of the tool. It does not mention side effects, but as a build tool, idempotency is implied.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences and a bullet-point list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates on the two distinct behaviors. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, has output schema) and the presence of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two operational modes. Minor gaps include not specifying prerequisites (e.g., Node.js) or what 'setup guidance' entails, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions ('Project path.' and 'Output directory.'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context to these parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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: 'Build Storybook static site.' It is specific with the verb 'Build' and the resource 'Storybook static site', and it distinguishes itself from sibling story tools (generate, accessibility, visual_test) by focusing on building. The two use cases (without installation and with configuration) further clarify its role.

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 provides clear context: it works both without Storybook installed (returns setup guidance) and with it configured (runs build). This implicitly tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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