run_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that the build may be long-running, that it produces artifacts or side effects, whether failures are reported as errors or exit codes, or what the agent receives on success vs failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse enough that it leaves gaps a slightly longer sentence could have closed.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no return-value description, the agent has no idea what a successful or failed build yields (compiler errors? pass/fail flag?). For a verification tool in a repo of 30+ siblings, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, whose description already explains it takes a repository name. The description adds nothing beyond the schema and actually introduces a mild mismatch by referring to 'an application or feature' while the only parameter is 'repository'. 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?

The description gives a specific verb (run) and resource (build and TypeScript type-checking), which is more precise than the bare name. It implicitly differentiates from run_tests and run_lint by naming compilation/type-checking, but never explicitly states how it differs from those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus run_tests or run_lint, no stated prerequisites (e.g. dependencies installed), and no note on whether it should be run before creating a PR. The agent must infer all routing logic from the name alone.

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