Start Build (Async)

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

Beyond annotations (which mark it as non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds behavioral details: it is async, requires polling, has default timeout of 15 min, and provides output path via get_task_result. However, it doesn't mention side effects like overwriting existing builds.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action (compiling apps) and efficiently conveys the async workflow and timeout. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 10 parameters and async output, the description covers the main workflow (poll, get result) and default timeout. It doesn't specify error handling or platform-specific parameter dependencies, but the schema handles those. Mostly complete for a complex tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only summarizes the platform and build tools used. No extra guidance on parameter values or dependencies.

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 tool compiles iOS or Android apps from source using xcodebuild or gradlew. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_unit_tests or run_feature_test by focusing on the build process and async pattern.

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 indirectly explains when to use the tool by describing the async workflow and that it returns a taskId for polling. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tools.

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