bazel_build

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

Annotations provide basic info (not read-only, destructive, or idempotent), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the build action. It does not disclose side effects like file system changes, concurrency, or required permissions, which are important for a build tool with openWorldHint true.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 covers return values but lacks details on side effects, failure behavior, or prerequisites. Given the complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description explains the 'options' parameter ('extra bazel flags') but does not mention 'targets' or 'timeout'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description insufficiently compensates, leaving key parameters undocumented.

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 verb 'Run a Bazel build' and the resource, and specifies the return values (stdout, stderr, exit code). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bazel_test' by focusing on the build action.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'bazel_test', 'bazel_query'). It only describes what it does, missing context on prerequisites or when not to use.

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