run_build

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

The description discloses that output is streamed live to server logs, which is a useful behavioral trait, especially given no annotations are provided. It does not cover potential side effects such as repository modifications, permission requirements, or failure behaviors, but the core streaming behavior is stated.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding a valuable behavioral note about live streaming. There is no redundant information or unnecessary length.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional params, and the description covers the core action and output streaming. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns on success/failure, and it does not differentiate from vbstudio_trigger_build in the sibling context, leaving some ambiguity.

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 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, explaining defaults and how to find valid values via list_repos and list_apps. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: 'Run grunt-vb-build for a VBCS app.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling build tools like vbstudio_trigger_build and run_audit by naming the exact build command and target.

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 usage for building VBCS apps, and the parameter descriptions in the schema provide workflow guidance by referencing list_repos and list_apps to discover valid values. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like vbstudio_trigger_build, nor does it state any exclusions.

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