build_cook_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool executes a multi-stage pipeline and can optionally deploy/run, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or output behavior; for a complex build pipeline this is limited 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?

Description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and pipeline steps. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 a 12-parameter pipeline with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It conveys the high-level purpose but omits details like what the command returns, how long it takes, or how it relates to sibling single-step commands. Still, the schema covers parameter semantics, so it is not wholly inadequate.

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% for all 12 parameters, each with its own description. The tool description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as the full BuildCookRun pipeline, enumerating the stages (build, cook, stage, package, optionally deploy/run) and positioning it as the primary packaging command. This is specific and distinguishes it from single-step siblings like build_target or cook_content.

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 says this is the primary command for packaging, which gives some context, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or explain when to use specific tools like cook_content or package_project. The 'primary' phrasing implies preference but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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