build_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention that building modifies the project, may be long-running, requires credentials or environment setup, or whether it cleans before building. The brief statement 'Compiles the project's C++ code' is tautological and adds no transparency beyond the name.

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 only two short sentences, so it is concise. However, it is so minimal that it misses important structural information like expected inputs, outputs, or side effects. While it is not verbose, it is under-specified and could benefit from more specific detail without being overly long.

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?

Building a C++ target is a complex operation that typically involves compilation, possibly linking, and can affect the project state. The description does not mention that it compiles for a specific platform or configuration, what happens on success/failure, or whether it returns a build status. Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it doesn't. This is incomplete for a build 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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (coverage 100%), so the schema already explains their meanings. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is consistent with baseline 3. The schema's descriptions are adequate (e.g., 'Build target: Editor, Game, Client, Server').

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 action: 'Build a C++ target using UnrealBuildTool' and adds 'Compiles the project's C++ code.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_plugin, build_cook_run, or generate_project_files, which have different scopes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as build_plugin, cook_content, or package_project. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The description merely states what it does without contextual direction.

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