build_tb_hierarchy

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

With no annotations to supply safety or behavior hints, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses caching, non-retention of raw source bodies, SLIM payload behavior, timeout/source-byte guard blocking, and the need to use the handle with getter tools.

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 core action and key behavior, then expands into usage guidance, return payload summary, and blocker behavior. Each sentence earns its place without redundant filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the SLIM payload fields and the blocked response. It also covers input guidance, server-side caching, privacy-relevant behavior, and subsequent tool usage, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining which log should be compile_log in split VCS flows and that supplementary logs participate in hierarchy identity via their order.

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 action: stream logs, scan source files, and cache the testbench hierarchy server-side. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling getter tools by framing it as the builder that returns a hierarchy_handle for later access.

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?

Provides clear context for use, including how to choose compile_log in split VCS flows and how to order supplementary logs. It also names the follow-up tools that consume the handle, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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