trigger_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool 'Returns build ID for status tracking,' which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the build is destructive (e.g., overwriting previous builds), required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the editor is not running. Given the lack of annotations, this omission is significant.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences covering purpose, default behavior, and return value. Every word adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and quickly details the key parameter.

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 that the tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema (which likely defines the return type), the description provides the essential information. However, it lacks depth regarding error cases (e.g., missing editor), other build types, and differentiation from many sibling tools. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'build_type'. The description partially compensates by stating the default value 'live_coding' and that it's a string. However, it fails to explain other possible values (e.g., if there is a 'production' type) or the format constraints, leaving the agent guessing about valid inputs beyond the default.

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 begins with 'Start a build,' which clearly states the action and resource. It further specifies the default build type and that it returns a build ID, making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_build_status or tail_log, which are about viewing or managing build results.

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 mentions that 'Live Coding requires editor running,' providing a prerequisite for the default build type. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_build_status, nor does it explain other build types or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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