run_project_build

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

No annotations provided, so description fully carries burden. It explains the tool runs steps sequentially, injects variables via template, returns a result object with status/step outputs/elapsed time, and raises specific errors. This is comprehensive for a build execution 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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet-like phrasing for returns and raises. Slightly verbose for the complexity, but still concise enough. The extra details on variables and not-to-use are justified.

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 complexity (build pipeline execution with artifacts), no annotations, and presence of an output schema (described in text), the description covers key aspects: what it does, what it returns, error conditions, and distinguishes from sibling artifact tools. It is complete for an agent to decide and use.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100%). Description adds context: variables are for template placeholders like {{FEATURE}}, build_name references manifests in docs/builds/, and that project and build_name are required. While schema already explains basics, description enriches usage semantics.

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?

Description clearly states it executes a named build pipeline from a YAML manifest under docs/builds/. It specifies the manifest defines steps and the tool runs them in order. Explicitly distinguishes from reading/writing artifacts by naming sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly tells when NOT to use it: 'Do NOT use this to read or write individual artifacts — call save_project_artifacts or read_project_artifacts instead.' Also describes return conditions and error cases (404 if name not found, RuntimeError on failure).

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