build_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns build output, but it does not disclose side effects like writing to disk, potential failures, or requirements such as having the .NET SDK installed. This is limited transparency for a tool that performs a 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, concise sentence that states the core action and return value. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it highly efficient.

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, the description covers the basic purpose, but it leaves gaps in parameter guidance, usage context, and behavioral details. With no annotations and a sparse schema, the description should compensate but does not. The presence of an output schema does not eliminate the need for more explanatory context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It does not clarify that project_path is the path to the project or what configuration values are accepted. The parameter names are self-explanatory only to a limited degree, and the description adds no 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 clearly states a specific action ('Build the plug-in project') and even specifies the command used ('dotnet build'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_plugin_project or push_plugin_update.

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. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked (e.g., after creating a plugin project, before pushing an update). It neither mentions exclusions nor alternatives.

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