get_package_build_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond them: the possible state values, elapsed time, a tail of captured UAT output, and the honest no-build fallback. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, follows with the no-build caveat, and then gives a compact return shape. Every sentence and field earns its place, especially since no output schema exists.

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?

With no input parameters and no separate output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return semantics, which it does thoroughly: possible states, elapsed time, output tail, and the session-scoped fallback. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not attempt to document absent parameters and instead devotes space to return fields, which is useful given the lack of an output 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Polls the state of the most recent start_package_build job'. The scope ('most recent', 'this editor session') and the enumerated states make it easy to distinguish from siblings like start_package_build and cancel_package_build.

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?

Explains that it polls the most recent build and adds a clear fallback condition ('Honest has_build:false if no build was ever started this editor session'), giving context for when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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