run_build

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

No annotations provided. The description only states the action (trigger/run) without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether execution is synchronous, side effects, error handling, or required permissions. The absence of safety information is a gap for a tool that executes commands.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the main action but omits important details. It is adequate for a minimal viable description but does not earn higher marks due to brevity at the cost of completeness.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or any side effects. For a tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. Additional context about build system behavior or command execution results is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description partially explains 'cmd' and 'shell_cmd' as ways to run specific commands, but 'working_dir' is not mentioned. The distinction between 'cmd' (array) and 'shell_cmd' (string) is not clarified, nor are any constraints or formats.

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 indicates the tool triggers the current build system or runs a specific command via cmd/shell_cmd. The verb 'trigger' and 'run' are specific, and the resources (build system, specific command) are identified. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'run_command', which likely overlaps, and 'current build system' is somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'run_command'. No explanation of when to use 'cmd' vs 'shell_cmd', or the role of 'working_dir'. The description lacks contextual decision-making help.

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