lerobot_build_example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Preview... without running it', which indicates non-destructiveness but does not explain what 'preview' entails (e.g., output format, side effects). Minimal disclosure.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is appropriately front-loaded, but lacks substance.

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 has no annotations, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and many sibling tools, the description fails to explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or return value. It is too minimal for an agent to use correctly.

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%, yet the description provides no information about any of the 4 parameters (example_path, options, extra_args, use_uv). The agent receives no guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them.

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 the verb 'Preview' and the resource 'LeRobot example script command'. It distinguishes from sibling 'lerobot_run_example' by explicitly saying 'without running it'.

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 implies when to use (preview) and when not (running) by saying 'without running it'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'lerobot_run_example' or 'lerobot_build_command' but the context is clear.

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