rebuild

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool forces a rebuild (a potentially expensive operation) and reports error status, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether the rebuild can fail mid-way, whether it blocks until complete, or whether it affects unsaved changes). It's adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Force a rebuild') and ending with the reported outcome. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it says what it does and what it reports. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of 'top_only' (the only parameter), and with no annotations, the agent has no safety or side-effect context. It's adequate for a simple tool but leaves the parameter semantics to inference.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'top_only' parameter. The description does not mention 'top_only' at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. Since there is only one parameter and its name is fairly self-explanatory, this is a minor gap, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Force a rebuild') and resource ('the current part'), and adds the outcome it reports ('whether it rebuilt without errors'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_status or export, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 when to use it: after making changes to a part, to force a rebuild and check for errors. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer (e.g., get_status for checking state without rebuilding). The context is clear but the exclusion/alternative guidance is missing.

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