hosting_getNode_jsBuildSettingsFromArchiveV1

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only scans an existing archive, does not build or deploy, returns preview values for review, and requires prior upload. For a read-only detection tool with no annotations, this is strong disclosure; it only omits exact output format details.

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?

Three tight paragraphs with front-loaded purpose, then usage, then prerequisite. No filler or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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 read-only detection tool with full schema param coverage, no output schema, and clear relations to sibling build/upload tools, this description is complete: it explains purpose, the prerequisite workflow, and what the user can do with the result.

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. But the description adds meaningful semantic context: it explains archive_path is relative to the document root and clarifies the three parameters (username, domain, archive_path) map to identifying the vhost and the archive. It also explains the values that will be detected (framework, node version, root directory, output directory, build script), which enriches parameter meaning 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 ('Auto-detect'), a clear resource ('Node.js build settings from a package.json inside an archive'), and a distinct pre-condition (archive must already be on the server). It clearly separates from the sibling `hosting_startNode_jsBuildV1` by positioning itself as the preview step before invoking that build command.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this before calling Start Node.js Build' and names the prerequisite endpoint `Generate Upload URL`. This gives explicit when-to-use guidance (preview/review), the alternative tool to follow, and a clear exclusion (archive must already be stored).

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