build_project

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds the 'colcon' implementation detail but does not disclose side effects like generated build artifacts, potential long execution time, or environmental requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 output schema and annotations present, the description is adequate but lacking details about the optional package_names behavior, colcon invocation semantics, and failure modes. It covers the core action but leaves significant operational context to the agent's assumptions.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameters. It hints that 'workspace_path' corresponds to the ROS workspace and 'package_names' to selected packages, but it does not explain path requirements or the behavior of null vs empty list. Partial compensation but incomplete.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Build' with resource 'ROS 2 workspace or selected packages' and method 'colcon', making the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct from sibling tools like create_package or run_tests.

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 implies this tool is for compiling/building (via colcon) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives. The sibling tool names (create_*, run_tests) offer indirect context, but no clear exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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