go_build

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions cross-compilation and custom flags but lacks details on side effects (e.g., output binary location, file system modifications). Provides basic context but insufficient depth.

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?

A single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is meaningful, no 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?

Despite 12 parameters and no output schema, the description omits key context: what the output is (binary), default behavior, prerequisites, or build directory conventions. Incomplete for effective usage.

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 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description highlights cross-compilation and build flags but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the action (Build), resource (Go packages), and key features (cross-compilation, custom build flags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like go_test or go_lint.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., make_build). The name implies usage for building Go packages, but no when-not or alternative references are given.

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