build_check_compatibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an external API dependency (Danawa API) and implies a read-only validation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or what happens if the build has no parts.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences carry clear purpose and relevant examples without filler or redundant restatement. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return format or how compatibility results are presented (e.g., list of issues, boolean, warnings). It also does not mention prerequisites such as a non-empty build. For a zero-parameter tool this is a minor but real gap.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add, and it correctly avoids introducing nonexistent parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it checks compatibility between parts added to the current build via the Danawa API. It also lists concrete compatibility dimensions (CPU-motherboard socket, CPU-RAM spec, RAM-motherboard slot), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling search and build-management 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?

The description clearly scopes usage to the current build's added parts, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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