build_project

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it executes trusted workspace code, which clarifies the nature but doesn't detail specific side effects or requirements beyond that. Moderate value added.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. No fluff. Could be slightly more structured, but effective.

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?

Tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. Description fails to explain return format, parameter roles, or behavioral nuances. Given complexity, the description is incomplete.

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%, so description must compensate. It does not mention any parameters or their meanings, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 it builds a Cities: Skylines II mod project and returns normalized diagnostics. The verb 'build' and resource are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'package_project', which may cause confusion.

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 only warns about using for trusted workspace code, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'package_project', 'scaffold_project'). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.

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