aisdlc_build_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects. A 'build_graph' tool plausibly writes build artifacts or indexes a repo, and none of that — write behavior, permissions, output location — is stated. 'Legacy alias' alone does not tell an agent what calling it actually does.

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?

It is a single sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but conciseness here comes at the cost of under-specification. The alias relationship is front-loaded, which is the right lead, but there is no follow-up substance.

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?

For a tool with an undocumented required-ish path parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what is built and where. It does none of that and leaves the agent to open the sibling tool's definition to learn anything.

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 single parameter repo_path has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it — no format, whether it is a local path vs a URL, whether it defaults to cwd given that it is not required. The description provides zero compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

It states the tool is a 'legacy alias' for localvibecode_build_graph, which clarifies its identity and points to the canonical tool, but it never says what a build_graph does — what graph, over what, producing what. The purpose beyond the alias relationship is inferred only from the name.

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?

Calling it a 'legacy alias' implicitly routes the agent toward localvibecode_build_graph instead, which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit 'prefer X' instruction, no statement of when this alias would still be needed, and no prerequisites.

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