build_openresty

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing. It does not say whether this is long-running, whether it disrupts the running service, whether it requires prior module selection, or what happens on failure.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single parenthetical is the only detail offered and it is opaque.

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 build/mutation tool with a nested required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the payload shape and side effects. Almost nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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?

There is a single required 'params' nested object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no information about what belongs inside it (build options, module list, version). With one undocumented, nested, required parameter, an agent cannot construct a valid call.

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 verb+resource pair 'Build OpenResty' is identifiable, but '(XPack)' is unexplained jargon and the description does not distinguish this from the many sibling OpenResty tools (get_openresty_conf, update_openresty_module, update_openresty_by_file). An agent cannot tell whether this compiles OpenResty, installs the XPack variant, or rebuilds config from this text alone.

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 indication of when to use this versus the other OpenResty configuration/module tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g., source already present, modules selected first). There are no exclusions or alternatives named despite a dense sibling set.

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