sailfish_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output (RPM package) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., modifies project files), typical runtime, or error handling. For a build tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action, tool used, and output. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the build entails (e.g., compilation steps), success/failure indicators, or output details beyond 'RPM package'. For a build tool with 4 parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the build process, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Build') and resource ('SailfishOS project'), specifying it uses the sfdk CLI and produces an RPM package. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sailfish_clean' or 'sailfish_deploy' by focusing on compilation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'sailfish_create_project' is distinct, but not called out).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after creating a project), when not to use it (e.g., if the project is already built), or refer to sibling tools like 'sailfish_clean' for resetting builds. Usage is implied but not stated.

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