build_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Executing a script can have arbitrary side effects, but the description does not mention potential modifications, required permissions, or whether changes are reversible. The only added context is 'CI/CD automation,' which is vague and does not address the actual behavior.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 is minimal for a tool that executes an external script. It lacks context about what happens after execution, what a 'target' is, how failures are handled, or any safety/usage caveats. With no output schema or annotations, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to use this tool confidently in varied scenarios.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for target, script_path, and additional_args. The description adds no additional semantic value for parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Execute a BuildGraph XML script for CI/CD automation.' The verb 'Execute' and resource 'BuildGraph XML script' are specific, and the CI/CD context distinguishes it from sibling build/execution tools like build_target or execute_console_command.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or contrast with siblings such as build_target, run_gauntlet, or execute_console_command. The description simply states what it does, leaving usage decisions to the user.

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