wire_build_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals that the tool is read-only and spends no credits, that pending/processing statuses require polling, that delivery may be partial (skipped list must always be checked), and that include_events produces a verbose log. This is significant behavioral context not found in the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A compact three-sentence paragraph front-loads the core purpose and mode distinction before detailing output fields and caveats. Every sentence adds information—no filler, and the structure makes the detail/list branching easy to follow.

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?

The description, combined with a full output schema and annotations, covers both operation modes, status polling behavior, the skipped-list caveat, and the next-step routing to action execution tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, even though page/limit details are left to the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of id provenance ('from wire_build's build_request') largely duplicates the schema's 'from wire_build's response,' and status examples mirror the schema. It adds little beyond the schema for parameters like page, limit, and include_events, though it does contextualize the output statuses.

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 ('Check on') and resource ('Wire builds started with wire_build'), and clearly separates detail mode (pass id) from list mode (omit id). It names related sibling tools (wire_read_action/wire_write_action) and disambiguates by stating the tool only checks status, not runs actions. This is unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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?

It provides explicit conditions: pass the id from wire_build's build_request for detail; omit id to list recent builds; poll after ~30s while pending/processing; always check the skipped list. It also points to wire_read_action/wire_write_action as the correct tools for running published actions, signaling what this tool is not for. However, it does not explicitly state 'use wire_build to start a new build instead,' so the exclusion is implied rather than spelled out.

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