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

Adds genuinely useful state semantics beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations: a failed build still reports status 'completed' with error explaining why, and url only appears once built and public. These edge cases are exactly what an agent would otherwise misread. It does not cover auth or freshness/refresh expectations, keeping it short of a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the remaining text is a dense run-on that mixes status vocabulary, URL timing, and run linkage in one breath; 'The steps move together' is unclear on first read. Every clause carries information, yet the packing hurts scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description still covers the non-obvious state model and the build-to-run linkage. For a two-param read tool this is sufficient, with only minor gaps like whether repeated polling is expected.

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 build_id and server_id are already fully documented as inputs, and the description adds no format or constraint detail for them. Its extra explanation is about output fields (url, run_id, status), which does not raise input-parameter clarity above the baseline.

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 ('Get a build's status') and immediately frames the linked run so the agent can distinguish this from get_run, which it names explicitly. The status vocabulary (running/done/failed) further pins down what is being retrieved.

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?

Routes the agent to get_run for live progress and to prompt with follow_up_of when run_status is awaiting_input, which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_run over get_build entirely), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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