build_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that HTML is returned for each page, but does not state whether the operation modifies existing data, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for an action verb like 'build'.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the return type. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and return format. However, the lack of annotations and any mention of preconditions or side effects leaves some gaps, but these are minor for the level of complexity.

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?

The input schema provides full 100% descriptive coverage for both parameters (projectId and routes). The description adds contextual meaning about the purpose (mapping screens to routes) but does not introduce new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already explains.

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's purpose: building a multi-page site from a project by mapping screens to URL routes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_screen or list_screens by focusing on the site assembly process and explicit screen-to-route mapping.

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 use when a user wants to combine screens into a multi-page site, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like generate_screen or get_screen_html. There is no direct mention of when not to use it, but the context is reasonably clear.

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