rojo_build_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it pulls the installed Rojo CLI's version from GitHub and patches it, plus the resulting auto-connect behavior and the git/rojo prerequisites. It still omits important build side effects, such as where the plugin is written and whether it overwrites existing files.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, then adds the relevant build source, patch behavior, and prerequisites. Every clause contributes useful context, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter build tool with an output schema, the description covers the source of the build, the resulting plugin behavior, and the machine prerequisites. The main remaining gap is the relationship to rojo_install_plugin and the exact filesystem effect of building.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. The baseline score of 4 applies because the empty schema is self-explanatory and the description does not need to document inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: build the auto-connect Rojo plugin. It explains the build composition (installed Rojo CLI version from GitHub plus a patch), which is more specific than the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling rojo_install_plugin, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage context by naming prerequisites (git and rojo on the machine) and describing the auto-connect behavior. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over rojo_install_plugin or other siblings, and no when-not conditions.

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