sc_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it fails to convey what happens during the build, potential side effects, required permissions, or output. The only hint is 'intelligent defaults,' which is vague and does not explain 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 only one sentence, but it is a vague tagline rather than a functional specification. It is under-specified, not concise in a helpful way—it lacks the details necessary for an agent to understand the tool.

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?

With 4 parameters (including nested objects and enums), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal to provide complete context. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or how to use the parameters, making it inadequate for safe invocation.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters, resulting in 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, but it does not need to because the schema is self-sufficient.

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 says 'Create any type of project' but the tool name suggests a build operation, creating a mismatch. 'Universal project builder' is virtually a tautology of the name, and there is no specific verb+resource scope that distinguishes it from siblings like sc_spawn or sc_dev-setup.

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 sc_build versus alternatives. The phrase 'universal project builder' implies broad applicability but gives no context about when it should be chosen over sibling tools (e.g., sc_spawn for creation or sc_dev-setup for setup).

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