Get Node.js build settings from archive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces that by framing the operation as previewing and reviewing settings. It adds useful context: detection comes from package.json, archive must be on the server, and which settings are exposed.

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?

Three short, focused paragraphs: what it does, when to use it, and what prerequisite must be met. Every sentence adds operational value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with three plain parameters, the description provides purpose, usage, prerequisite, and the settings that will be returned. A detailed return format is missing, but the listed settings largely compensate for the absence of an output schema.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds general context about the uploaded archive and settings but gives no additional detail about username or domain beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: auto-detect Node.js build settings from a package.json inside an archive. It connects to the related Start Node.js Build workflow and lists the settings that get previewed, making it clearly distinct from sibling node/hosting tools.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow: call this before Start Node.js Build to preview or let the user override settings. It also states the prerequisite that the archive must already be uploaded and points to Generate Upload URL for that step.

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