run_build

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that installation only happens 'when the profile declares artifactPath' and that the build is 'server-side'. This provides useful conditional behavior that the annotation alone does not convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes meaning—no fluff, no repetition of schema or annotations. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 3 parameters, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the core action and an important conditional side effect. It lacks details on error cases or prerequisites (e.g., profile must exist), but the schema provides enough parameter context. Overall, it is quite complete for its simplicity.

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 schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic meaning by tying the install_after_build parameter to the artifactPath condition, which is not mentioned in the schema. This helps the agent understand when the install flag will actually take effect.

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 action: 'Run a configured server-side build profile' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the optional install of the resulting APK, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_build_profiles (listing) and install_apk (installing).

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 implies when to use the tool (to build a profile, optionally install), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like list_build_profiles or install_apk are not referenced, so the agent has to infer the appropriate context from the description alone.

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