verify_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs a build command and returns success/failure with errors, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the command is auto-detected, how long it may take, whether it modifies the filesystem, or what happens on timeout—information that would matter for an agent deciding how to call it.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place. The first states the verb and output, the second gives the timing, and the third states the success criterion. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded immediately after the core action.

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 tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and simple parameters, the description is nearly complete: it tells what it does, when to use it, and what counts as success. The only notable gap is the lack of mention of return format beyond 'success/failure with any errors', but given the tool's simplicity this is minor.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters, including defaults and the auto-detect behavior for 'command'. The description reinforces the tool's purpose but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the high baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description's clear scope slightly elevates it.

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 names the verb 'Runs' and the resource 'build command', then specifies the outcome ('returns success/failure with any errors'). It also differentiates itself from siblings like run_lint and run_typecheck by focusing on the build step. The statement 'A task is NOT complete until this returns success' adds a strong, unambiguous purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'AFTER implementing changes to verify the build passes.' It also provides a clear exclusion rule by implying the task is not done until success, which helps an agent know this is a final verification step. Though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives, the timing guidance is concrete and actionable.

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