Rebuild all README files in a story repository and retrieve the build results with captured output logs.
重建所有 README（等效 story build）。返回构建结果与捕获的输出日志
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "build"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns build and captured output but does not elaborate on side effects or state changes beyond 'rebuild'. This is partially covered by annotations, but the description itself adds limited transparency about behavior.
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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the action and the return value without unnecessary details. It is well-structured and to the point.
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 the absence of parameters and output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It could specify the exact format or nature of the 'build' output, but for a parameterless tool this is sufficient.
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?
There are no parameters in the schema, so coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description adds no parameter-specific details since none exist.
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 that the tool rebuilds all README files, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle configuration, validation, statistics, import, story creation, scanning, and chapter reading/writing, which are unrelated to building READMEs.
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 mentions 'equivalent story build' but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on scenarios such as regenerating outdated READMEs or when to prefer this over other operations. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.