Get 2ools build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (status, progress, errors, etc.) and what is not (generated source code). This goes beyond annotations to set accurate agent expectations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and outputs. The second sentence clarifies an important exclusion. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is 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?

For a simple read tool with one well-documented parameter, annotated safety, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns, what it excludes, and how to identify the build (via job_id from build_from_conversation). No gaps remain.

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% and the parameter description already states 'Build job ID returned by build_from_conversation'. The main description does not add further parameter details (e.g., format, validation). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('one build's current status, progress, errors, completed version IDs, and protected preview URLs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'build_from_conversation' (creates a build) and 'cancel_build' (cancels a build) by focusing solely on retrieving build details. The explicit exclusion ('Does not return generated source code') further clarifies scope.

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 that the 'job_id' parameter is provided by 'build_from_conversation', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after initiating a build). No direct guidance on prerequisites or comparison with siblings like 'list_build_systems' is given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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