r_build_package

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

No annotations provided; description is minimal: 'Build an R package using devtools::build()'. Does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or whether it's a read/write operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing effects).

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?

No output schema. Description lacks context about build artifacts, success/failure indicators, or any constraints like required R environment. Incomplete for a build 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 covers 100% of parameters (package_path, binary) with descriptions. Description adds no further meaning; baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it builds an R package using devtools::build(), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like r_install_package or r_check_package.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., build vs check vs install). Agent given no decision criteria.

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