Get 2ools build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive actions, so the baseline safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral specifics beyond annotations: it enumerates the exact types of data returned (status, progress, errors, version IDs, protected preview URLs) and the notable exclusion of source code. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the tool's output boundaries.

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 two sentences: the first lists the key output categories in a compact list, and the second clarifies an important exclusion. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains zero filler, and every word earns its place.

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-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive enough. It tells the agent exactly what to expect (status, progress, errors, version IDs, preview URLs) and what not to expect (source code). Combined with the rich annotations and schema description, there are no significant gaps in context.

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 100% for the only parameter (job_id), and the schema description clearly explains its origin ('returned by build_from_conversation'). The tool description adds no additional parameter details, but since the schema already provides full coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('one build's current status, progress, errors, completed version IDs, and protected preview URLs'). It also explicitly states what it does not return ('Does not return generated source code'), which distinguishes it from other tools that might return source artifacts. This is a precise and well-scoped purpose.

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 clear usage: use this tool to fetch build status and related details. It also provides a 'when-not' clue by stating it does not return source code. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use get_project for project-level info'), so it falls short of a 5 but still offers clear context.

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