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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it delegates to the SDK's canonical implementation, reports the same envelope as other DPYC services, and explicitly states that vault/courier/operator fields are False/empty because this is an unauthenticated community utility with no operator runtime. It also explains the semantic importance of the build_info field.

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 well-structured, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose. The subsequent paragraphs add necessary context about deployment verification, the canonical envelope, and unauthenticated field behavior. It is slightly verbose for a zero-param tool, but each sentence earns its place by conveying meaningful details.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is comprehensive: it explains the tool's raison d'être (deploy verification), the canonical payload shape, the critical field's meaning, and the security context. It does not need to describe return values since an output schema exists, but it adds crucial context that schema alone cannot.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output/payload meaning rather than input. It adds value by clarifying the load-bearing field, but this is output context, not parameter concerns.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report the running build so a redeploy can be verified.' It clearly states the core function and distinguishes the tool from siblings by describing it as the canonical, single-source service_status payload, which is useful for deploy verification rather than just generic status.

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 a clear use case: to probe the live service after a merge and confirm the deployed Git SHA. It warns that without this tool, deploy verification fails because the SHA reads as '<none>'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., collector_status) or exclusions, but the context strongly implies when to use it.

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