build

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

The description discloses return values (success, compiler output, binary paths, flash/RAM usage) and notes that it may run configuration ('Configure (if needed)'). However, it does not mention side effects like creating build artifacts, cleaning behavior of the 'clean' parameter, or whether it modifies project files. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short of full transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and toolchain, and every clause adds information. It efficiently covers purpose and output without repetition or fluff.

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?

For a build tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema provides adequate context. It explains what the tool returns (which is otherwise unknown) and that configuration may occur. Missing parameter explanations are the main gap, but the overall tool complexity is low enough that an agent can likely invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. 'clean', 'build_dir', and 'project_dir' are not described. While the tool's purpose gives some context, the description does not add meaning to these parameters beyond their names and defaults in the schema.

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's function: 'Configure (if needed) and build an STM32C011 project with CMake+Ninja+arm-none-eabi-gcc.' It provides a specific verb (build), a resource (STM32C011 project), and the toolchain, distinguishing it from siblings like scaffold_project, flash, and list_probes.

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 usage when a compiled project is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use scaffold_project to create a project' or 'use flash to upload'). No when-not-to-use criteria are given. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit guidance is absent.

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