qt_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral transparency. It explains toolchain selection behavior, automatic Qt-bundled Ninja usage, the consequence of qt_major mismatch (fails to inject), and the locked-file failure mode when old DLLs remain attached. This goes well beyond a simple 'build' statement.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is densely packed with necessary operational detail and is well-structured: it starts with a purpose sentence, then explains toolchain semantics, then mandatory user-consent steps, then parameter-specific guidance, and finally a rebuild prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and formatting aids scanning.

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 8-parameter complexity, absence of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, this description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, critical preconditions, user interaction requirements, cross-tool dependencies, and failure modes. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to document return values.

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 0%, yet the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: toolchain with msvc/mingw semantics, vcvars_path/qt_env roles, qt_major matching rule, with_qml purpose, build_type matching requirement, vcvars_args example, and generator override guidance. It adds meaning well beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Build the Qt injection library and injector for the specified environment.' It clearly distinguishes this build tool from the sibling inspection/control tools like qt_list_processes, qt_attach, and qt_detach. The unique build purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage rules: the AI MUST present build environments to the user, MUST ask about QML support, MUST ask for build_type, and MUST NOT guess paths. It also gives a concrete alternative/prerequisite by directing the AI to use qt_detach with purge=True before rebuilding and to read qt_major from qt_list_processes or qt_detect_msvc_and_qt.

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