build_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as whether it validates inputs, handles errors, caches results, or has performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the formatting with indentation might be slightly verbose. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, error handling, and output specifics. For a tool with three parameters and no structured support, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters (language, patterns, combine) and provides some semantics (e.g., 'patterns' can be template names or custom patterns, 'combine' has options 'or' or 'and'), but it doesn't fully explain usage details like format examples or constraints. Baseline is 3 as it adds moderate value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build a tree-sitter query from templates or patterns.' It specifies the verb ('Build') and resource ('tree-sitter query'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'run_query' or 'adapt_query', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'run_query' (which might execute queries) or 'adapt_query' (which might modify them), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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