project_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It only says 'Build banks' with a performance hint, but does not disclose whether it mutates project state, whether it is idempotent, how long it takes, or what happens to existing banks. Minimal transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is repetitive but acceptable. It earns a 4 because it's compact yet clear.

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 description lacks critical context: no mention of side effects, return values, performance expectations beyond a speed hint, or how this tool differs from sibling tools like bank_create or project_get_info. For a build operation with 2 parameters and no schema help, this is insufficient.

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 0%, and the description does add meaning by naming the parameters and stating defaults ('every bank', 'every platform'). However, it does not explain what a bank or platform is, or how the parameters interact. This partially compensates for the missing 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 action ('Build banks') and the resource (banks) with optional scoping by platform. It distinguishes from the many bank_* sibling tools by implying a bulk build operation, though it doesn't explicitly say what 'build' means (compile? generate?).

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?

It provides a hint about scoping for performance ('scoping a big project to one bank is much faster'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bank_create or bank_list. No exclusions or comparison with siblings.

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