get_sign_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (ID, status values including idle/in_progress/completed/failed, and sign key ID) and notes that no authentication is required. For a read-only operation this is adequate, but it does not mention error conditions, potential latency, or that it is non-mutating. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the auth requirement and the status enumerations, but lacks depth on failure or edge-case behavior.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, usage timing, and return contents. It front-loads the primary action and includes no filler. Every sentence contributes distinct information—no redundancy with the schema or title. This is an exemplar of efficient writing.

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 read-only status endpoint with a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, return contents, and authentication. It does not detail error scenarios or pagination, but those are less critical for a simple getter. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe the full return structure. Missing information is minor and unlikely to cause incorrect invocation.

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 schema has one parameter, build_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description says 'for a build' and 'after sign_build', which implicitly identifies build_id as the build to inspect. However, it does not explicitly explain that build_id is required, its format, or that it must correspond to a previously created build. Since there is only one parameter and the name is self-explanatory, the description partially compensates for the schema gap, but it could be more explicit.

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 it retrieves the status of sign tasks for a build, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sign tasks'). It also provides context that this is typically used after sign_build, which helps differentiate it from other get_* tools like get_build_info or get_products. However, it doesn't explicitly state what it is not (e.g., not for general build info), but the name and description make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after sign_build to check whether signing completed or failed.' This gives a clear when-to-use condition tied to the sign_build workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but among the sibling tools, the context is enough to know this is for signing status. The directive is direct and actionable.

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