Run cached build

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent already knows this runs something with side effects. The description adds genuinely useful cache semantics (hash-based key, restore-on-hit, write-on-miss), which goes beyond the annotations, but it never states what 'restore cached outputs' overwrites, what happens on a failed run, or that an arbitrary command is executed with disk writes.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the mechanism and walks through hit and miss paths. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For an 11-parameter, destructive, open-world build runner with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain parameter behavior, cache-key composition beyond 'declared inputs', failure handling, or what a caller should expect to get back.

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% across 11 parameters, and the description only alludes to three of them (command, inputs, outputs). Key controls like force, restore, cwd, environment, timeoutMs, maxOutputBytes, deviceId and deviceName are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving most of the surface unexplained.

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 states a specific mechanism with concrete verbs and resources: hash inputs+command, restore outputs on hit, run and cache on miss. An agent can immediately tell this is a cached build runner. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings like build_cache_clear, build_cache_stats, or project_build_test.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a cache hit vs miss matters to the caller, and no routing to alternatives such as build_cache_clear or shell_run. Usage is only implied by the description of the hit/miss mechanics.

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