query_compile_status

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

The description states 'Query', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it only minimally addresses behavioral transparency.

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 a single, short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. It could mention the expected return format or that it checks status post-upload, but it is sufficient.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by specifying that package IDs come from uploads, which clarifies their origin beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action (Query), the specific resource (AAB compilation status), and the context (package IDs returned after upload). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like upload, submit, or update tools.

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 when to use the tool (after upload, to check compilation status), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear enough for most agents.

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