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. It reveals this is a build operation (implying mutation/creation), includes specific shell commands showing it performs clean build steps, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects, error behavior, or output format.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. Every element ('Build the M33 core' plus the specific command sequence) serves a clear purpose in describing the tool's functionality.

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 zero-parameter build tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core action and implementation details. However, it lacks information about what the build produces, error handling, or dependencies that would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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 zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameters, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('Build') and the target resource ('the M33 core'), with specific implementation details provided. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the M33 target, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other build tools like build_all or build_c906.

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_c906. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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