build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it rebuilds READMEs and returns logs, but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting files, prerequisites, or failure behaviors. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs destructive writes without any annotated safety hints.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then states the return value. It contains zero filler and each clause adds necessary information. It is both concise and complete for its length.

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 tool's low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential elements: what it does (rebuilds all READMEs) and what it returns (build results and logs). It could mention prerequisites or side effects, but for a simple build tool, this is reasonably complete. The absence of annotations slightly lowers confidence, but the description is adequate for its scope.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the baseline rule, a description with 0 params earns a baseline score of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details since none exist, and it doesn't introduce any conflicting or misleading information, so the baseline holds.

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 action ('重建所有 README') and its purpose ('等效 story build'), making it distinct from siblings like scan_stories or validate. It names the resource (READMEs) and the modifier (rebuild), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implies when to use this tool (to rebuild READMEs) and provides a parenthetical equivalence ('等效 story build') that gives context, but it fails to specify when not to use it or mention any alternatives. It gives some contextual clue but lacks explicit guidance on choosing this over other tools, so it's only minimally adequate.

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