build

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is too brief. It only says 'Build the Android project' without disclosing side effects, permissions, build variant, or outcome. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand behavioral impact.

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 very concise at one sentence. However, it lacks any structural formatting (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability for a simple tool.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify what 'build' entails (e.g., compilation steps, output artifacts, success/failure indicators). This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. This meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 the verb 'Build' and resource 'Android project', and implies using the folder parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'test' and 'instrumentedTest' by focusing on building rather than testing. However, it lacks specificity on build type (e.g., debug/release) or output.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling names imply use for building, while tests are for testing, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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