XR875 Build MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it reveals the tool executes a specific build sequence ('lunch_rtos 34 && m clean && m'), it doesn't mention whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose - stating what's being built and providing the exact build sequence. No wasted words.

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?

For a build tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'C906 core' is, what the build sequence does, what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from sibling build tools. The context is insufficient for proper tool selection and usage.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, which is efficient.

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 states the specific action ('Build the C906 core') and includes implementation details, but it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its siblings (build_all, build_m33, build_ota). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_all or build_m33. The description includes implementation commands but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for using this specific build tool.

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