Esq Build Package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether validation failures abort the build, whether an existing ZIP at output_path is overwritten, or what permissions/auth are needed. The auto_fix semantics live only in the schema, not here.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with five parameters and nested input.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents inputs. But for a mutating, file-producing tool with no annotations, the description omits failure behavior, overwrite semantics, and the validate/build pipeline relationship — gaps that matter when an agent decides whether to call this or the validator.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the deeply nested papers/answers/manifest structures and the auto_fix behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific compound verb (校验并构建 / validate and build) and a precise resource (ESQ 1.0 题库包 ZIP), so an agent knows this produces a ZIP artifact rather than just checking one. However, it never contrasts itself with the sibling esq_validate_package, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is the validate-then-build composite.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to prefer this over esq_validate_package (dry-run validation) or when to follow it with esq_upload_and_publish. The relationship between validation and building is only implied by the word 构建.

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