run_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details: the build command is auto-detected from the repository, and the tool returns exit code and output with error lines preserved even for long logs. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as writing artifact files or requiring specific permissions, which would be relevant for a build operation.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function and gives supporting detail about return behavior without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: what it builds, how the command is determined, and the return format. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it and side-effect warnings, but these are partly covered in other dimensions.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, though it indirectly clarifies the 'command' parameter by mentioning auto-detection. No additional compensation needed.

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: to build the project using an auto-detected build command. It lists supported ecosystems (Maven, Gradle, npm, etc.), which distinguishes it from generic commands like run_command and related tools like run_tests or run_lint. The verb 'build' and resource 'project' are specific.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to build the project. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer run_command for arbitrary execution. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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