This sounds like the linked post: some people build the game engine, others build the game.
I think what happens is that people use a tool and they find a flaw, and they come up with an idea which will not have it. They build it, great! But then their tool also has flaws, due to things they didn't predict or trade offs - to make one part more elegant, maybe another part must suffer.
I feel often the most productive is to live with the flaws and do incremental improvements to reduce them. Creating a whole new tool is often futile - unless it's revolutionary, adopting won't be great, or won't boost your productivity that much to account for the time you sank building it.
I think what happens is that people use a tool and they find a flaw, and they come up with an idea which will not have it. They build it, great! But then their tool also has flaws, due to things they didn't predict or trade offs - to make one part more elegant, maybe another part must suffer.
I feel often the most productive is to live with the flaws and do incremental improvements to reduce them. Creating a whole new tool is often futile - unless it's revolutionary, adopting won't be great, or won't boost your productivity that much to account for the time you sank building it.