Build Project

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and description adds that it auto-detects framework and verifies compilation. However, it lacks details on side effects like cleaning previous builds or dependency requirements. Description adds value but could be more thorough.

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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading. First sentence states purpose, second adds usage context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and auto-detection. Could mention output artifacts or prerequisites, but sufficient for a straightforward build tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'path'. Description adds meaning by noting auto-detection from package.json, implying the path should contain package.json. This enhances understanding beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool builds a project for production, with specific verb 'Build' and resource 'project'. It distinguishes from siblings like varity_dev_server by specifying production context and pre-deployment usage.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Run before deploying or to verify the project compiles.' Provides clear context, though does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not scenarios. Still strong guidance.

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