build

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key non-obvious trait: incremental compilation skips unchanged files and suppresses their warnings, which explains seemingly missing diagnostics. It also implies compile errors are returned as data rather than thrown, but does not state failure semantics, permissions, or whether a run can partially succeed.

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, front-loaded with the action and return shape, then the caching caveat with its remedy. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still names the return item fields and the caching behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It leaves open what a total compile failure looks like in the response, a minor gap for a two-parameter 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description only restates force's effect and says nothing about max_bytes, the response-size budget, which is the less obvious of the two knobs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Compile the project with `forge build`") plus what it returns (errors and warnings with file/line/column/code/message). It is clearly distinguishable in practice from run_tests and explain_failure, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete condition for the one meaningful option: pass force: true when you need warnings from unchanged files re-reported. It does not say when to prefer this over run_tests or explain_failure, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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