course_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: lessons lacking audio advance silently using estimated time. However, it says nothing about whether existing files in out_dir are overwritten, whether the build is idempotent, what permissions or disk usage are involved, or what it reports on completion — significant gaps for a file-writing tool.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the primary output is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of the missing information noted elsewhere.

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 two-parameter build tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover input sources, output destination defaults, and overwrite behavior. It covers only the output artifact and one fallback behavior, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it with non-default arguments.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: neither course_dir (source of lessons) nor out_dir (destination, default null) is explained. The mention of 'dist/index.html' only vaguely hints at the default output location, leaving both parameters semantically opaque.

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 names a concrete verb-and-resource pair (builds a single-file HTML player at dist/index.html plus audio files) and even states the behavioral fallback for audio-less lessons. It is clearly distinct from course_init and lesson_save, though it never explicitly says the course content comes from course_dir, leaving the input-output relationship to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus siblings such as course_init (scaffolding) or audio_synthesize (audio generation alone), nor any prerequisite like running lesson_validate or course_init first. The agent must guess at the pipeline position of this tool.

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