build_tests

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action of building, omitting side effects (e.g., artifact generation, output location, success/failure indicators) or any operational constraints like required environment or duration.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, for a build tool with 3 parameters, it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral notes without harming conciseness.

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 lacks essential context for a build tool, such as expected outcomes (e.g., compiled binaries), error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., source code present). Schema coverage alone does not compensate for missing operational context.

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%, so parameters are fully documented structurally. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable per baseline scoring. No parameter-specific semantics are provided.

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 uses the verb 'Build' and clearly specifies the resource as 'the project, including test targets'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools 'build' (likely without tests), 'list_tests', and 'run_tests', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 for building test targets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build' for plain builds or 'run_tests' after building. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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