analyze_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the types of information extracted but does not state whether the operation has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how it handles missing or invalid files. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key outputs. It is somewhat long but information-dense, with no wasted words. The structure is appropriate for the tool's broad scope.

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 tool is complex with many output categories, and there is no output schema or annotations to supplement the description. The description lists the types of information extracted, but does not explain the return format, potential errors, or how to interpret the results. While adequate for a basic understanding, it leaves gaps for a user needing to know what to expect.

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 100%, so the parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the build_name parameter beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 function: 'Analyze a Path of Building build file and extract detailed information.' It specifies the resource (build file) and the scope (stats, skills, gear, passive tree, keystones, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools by covering a comprehensive analysis rather than a single metric.

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 like get_build_stats or analyze_defenses. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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