Build the project

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

Annotations only say it is not read-only, is idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds duration ('may take minutes'), progress notifications, the return payload (output folder plus last log lines), the failure mode (error with end of the build log), and the no-build-step no-op. That is substantial context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, and no filler. The first sentence is long with stacked parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden (folder plus log tail, error text on failure) and covers timing and notifications. It does not mention what build artifacts or files are written to disk, a minor gap for a mutating tool with destructiveHint=false.

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 only one parameter, dir, and schema coverage is 100% with its own description of absolute vs. relative paths. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Runs the project's detected build command locally') plus the outcome returned (output folder and log tail). It also handles the edge case where no build step exists, and names the siblings it overlaps with, so the agent can tell it apart from gamealia_run_autotest, gamealia_preview and gamealia_upload_version.

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?

Explicitly states that it is 'usually optional' because the autotest, preview and upload tools build first by themselves, then gives the one condition that selects it: debugging a failing build. This is exactly the when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use routing an agent needs.

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