build_vertices

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description implies a read-only operation by using verbs like 'Retrieves' and 'Get'. It also transparently notes deprecation and planned removal. However, it does not explicitly state lack of side effects or authorization requirements, which would be ideal for full transparency.

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 somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. The deprecation warning is placed at the beginning for importance, and the core purpose follows. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure effectively prioritizes critical information.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, use cases, and the output format ('ordered list of vertex IDs'). Without an output schema, it adequately describes what the tool returns. However, it does not mention error conditions or performance implications, leaving some minor gaps.

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?

All 4 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds some context about partial builds involving start/stop_component_id, but this largely repeats schema info. It does not provide additional syntax, constraints, or parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already offers.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get vertex build order for a flow.' It specifies the action (retrieve) and resource (vertex build order), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'build_flow' by recommending it as a replacement for partial builds.

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 explicitly tells when not to use this tool (deprecated) and provides the alternative ('Use build_flow tool instead'). It also explains when the tool is useful (understanding dependencies, optimizing performance, debugging) and mentions partial build support via start/stop component IDs.

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