build_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying that output is structured compiler diagnostics rather than raw rustc text, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as file system changes, network usage, or permission requirements, leaving notable gaps.

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 sentences long, with the first stating the action and the second clarifying the output format. Every sentence provides essential information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's core purpose and output type. For a build tool with only two parameters and no output schema, it covers the essential usage context. Minor gaps exist (e.g., side effects or success behavior) but the tool is sufficiently described given its complexity.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (network enum/default and project_path with Cargo.toml context), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning the Stellar CLI, so it aligns with the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 the specific verb 'Builds' and identifies the resource as 'a Soroban smart contract project using the Stellar CLI.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deploy_contract or invoke_contract by focusing on the build stage. The note about returning structured diagnostics further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implies its role as the build step (before deployment) but lacks direct guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria. Users must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context, making it decent yet not fully explicit.

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