build_cook_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the pipeline stages (build, cook, stage, package, deploy/run), conveying the tool's mutating and multi-step nature. It does not mention potential long execution times, prerequisites, or artifact outputs, but the stage listing is substantial.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and pipeline stages. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description only provides a broad overview and lacks guidance on parameter combinations, prerequisites, or expected outcomes. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent deciding how to configure the pipeline.

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 documents all 12 parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a high-level pipeline overview but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 performs a full BuildCookRun pipeline with specific verbs: build, cook, stage, package, and optionally deploy/run. It also labels itself 'the primary command for packaging a project,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_target, cook_content, and package_project.

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 identifies the tool as the primary command for packaging a project, indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools for partial operations (e.g., build_target, cook_content) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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