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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state whether this is read-only, what 'aggregate status' values exist, whether it polls or blocks, or whether unauthenticated access is allowed. The phrase 'aggregate status' adds some semantics but leaves core behavior opaque.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple getter and easy to scan.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return-value information. It says what it gets but not what the aggregate status contains or how to interpret the result, leaving an agent able to call it but not to use its output confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented batchId parameter. It only implies batchId refers to a batch from build_batch, but gives no format, source, or validation details, leaving the required parameter underspecified.

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 (Get) and resource (aggregate status of a batch), and links it to a sibling tool (build_batch) so the agent can see the submission-tracking relation. It doesn't differentiate from get_build or list_builds, but the 'aggregate status' and 'batch' phrasing is reasonably distinct.

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 implies usage by tying the tool to a batch created via build_batch, so an agent knows it applies after submission. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. get_build/list_builds, nor any condition or exclusion guidance.

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