Run the configured build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the 5-30 minute runtime, that progress notifications keep long-running clients alive, the 60-second Codex default timeout risk, and that the run produces an artifact recorded for upload. It does not state authentication requirements or where artifacts are written.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by runtime expectations and the timeout fallback. Three sentences with little waste, though the Codex-specific timeout detail is somewhat lengthier than strictly necessary.

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 no annotations, so the description must cover behavior itself; it explains runtime, timeout handling, and the artifact handoff to buildtree_upload. It stops short of describing the return payload or permission prerequisites, which leaves a small gap for a long-running mutation-style tool.

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 coverage is only 50%: dir and platform are documented in the schema, but tailLines and timeoutSeconds have no descriptions in either the schema or the description. The description's 'for one platform' wording marginally reinforces the platform parameter, but it adds no syntax or guidance for the two undocumented numeric 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 states a specific action (run the build command from buildtree.config.json) with a defined scope (one platform) and a downstream effect (record the artifact for buildtree_upload). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like buildtree_upload or buildtree_list_builds without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context (config-driven build for one platform) and an explicit when-not/alternative path: if the client enforces a short timeout, run `npx @buildtree/cli build android` in a shell and then call buildtree_upload with the artifact path. This names both the failure condition and the substitute workflow.

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