lean_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions side effects (restarting LSP Server), the potentially long execution time for 'clean', and the path inference behavior from previous calls. The warning about 'clean' addresses safety and resource usage.

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 concise and well-structured with purpose, usage, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, including the important warning about clean. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers purpose, parameters, return type, and an important caution. With an output schema present, it need not detail the return structure further. The description is complete for an AI agent to invoke the tool 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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: lean_project_path is optional and inferred, clean runs 'lake clean' with an explicit warning and default. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 'Build the Lean project and restart the LSP Server', using specific verbs and the resource affected. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are query/analysis tools without build or restart functionality.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use only if needed (e.g. new imports)' and warns about the clean flag being time-consuming. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is the only build-related tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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