Prepare judge target

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by explaining that the tool triggers generators, validation, and test runs asynchronously, and that the caller must poll for results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core action and pipeline steps, the second gives the required follow-up. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 single-parameter async pipeline starter with a full output schema and annotations, the description covers the main workflow and the necessary polling step. It could mention prerequisites or failure behavior, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly 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 100%, and the only parameter, session_id, is already described as 'Build session id'. The description refers to a draft session but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Kick off Repovive's build pipeline for a draft') and enumerates what the pipeline does: run generators, validate inputs, and run solutions against tests. This distinguishes it from related build tools like repovive_build_run_status, which is explicitly named only as a follow-up.

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 gives clear context for use ('for a draft') and explicitly instructs the agent to poll repovive_build_run_status for the outcome. It does not enumerate exclusion cases or alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough for selection.

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