tool_run_op_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that Docker/Colima must be running, the image is pulled each run, and OP_IMAGE can pin a version. However, it does not mention that the workspace must contain skaffold.yaml (implied by schema but not in description), nor what the tool modifies or creates.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the core action, second adds prerequisite, third adds configuration. No superfluous words, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 basic usage and prerequisites. However, it fails to mention that the workspace must contain skaffold.yaml (a required file per the schema description for workspace). Given that an output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the missing prerequisite is a notable gap for a build tool.

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 are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool runs 'op build' in the workspace using the official op container. The verb 'run' and resource 'op build' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools which are about detection, CI generation, etc.

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 provides clear context: Docker or Colima must be running, and the container image is always pulled. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though siblings are for different tasks.

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