cmake_build

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

Annotations already declare destruction, non-idempotency, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the targets/default semantics but says nothing about build side effects, artifact production, or failure behavior beyond the annotation layer.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying target defaulting, though the description is arguably under-specified for a 4-param tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive build tool with 4 undocumented parameters and no annotations-level elaboration on side effects, the description is too thin to call it sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only the targets parameter (omitted vs nonempty), leaving timeout, parallel, and profiles completely undocumented anywhere.

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 (build) and resource (selected profiles/build presets), and the phrase 'after configuration' places it relative to cmake_configure and cmake_test. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'after configuration' implies a prerequisite and workflow position, which is genuine usage context. However, it never states when to use this over cmake_configure/cmake_test or any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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