build_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this operation is read-only or destructive, what side effects it may have (e.g., modifying build artifacts), or whether it requires special privileges. For a tool that executes scripts, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient and to the point, but it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose, such as a note about the `additional_args` parameter or typical usage patterns.

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's complexity (execution of scripts, potential side effects, and need for clear behavioral expectations) and the absence of annotations or an output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the effect of the `additional_args` parameter, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for a potentially impactful operation.

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?

The description mentions 'BuildGraph XML script' and 'target', which aligns with the script_path and target parameters, but it adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. The schema already describes each parameter at 100% coverage, so the description does not substantially enhance understanding of parameter usage or formats.

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 executes a BuildGraph XML script for CI/CD automation, specifying the resource (XML script) and the action (execute). It is somewhat distinct from siblings like build_target or build_cook_run, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself or clarify what BuildGraph is, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 it is used for CI/CD automation, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_target or build_cook_run. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are made, leaving the usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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