build_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Generate or write' and includes write/overwrite/backup parameters, suggesting side effects, but does not explicitly state that files may be created or overwritten, nor does it describe permissions or destructive behavior.

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 very concise: two sentences clearly stating the purpose and use cases. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.

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 11 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description is brief but covers the tool's intent. Lacks details on how parameters interact or expected output, but adequate for a generation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description lists use cases which clarify the enum parameters. However, it does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Template variables' remains vague). 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 specifies 'Generate or write Terragrunt HCL configuration files' with explicit use cases (remote_state, provider_generation, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cli_reference or search_docs.

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 enumerates specific use cases (remote_state backends, provider generation, etc.), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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