ue_build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool shows status (in progress, errors, log queue) but does not explain whether it is a one-time poll or streaming, whether it blocks, or any side effects. The description adds some context but misses key behavioral details for a status-checking tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose and includes type details. There is no redundant information; every word contributes value. It is highly concise.

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 simple input schema and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and status types but lacks details on polling behavior, return format, and error handling. It does not fully equip the agent for all usage scenarios.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'tail_lines' parameter at all. The schema itself documents it as an optional integer with default 30, but the description fails to add any meaning, such as explaining that it controls how many log lines are returned. This is a significant gap.

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 tool's function: checking the status of a build started with ue_build_start. It lists the status types (in progress, errors, log queue), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ue_package_status, though the mention of 'build started with ue_build_start' implies the context.

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 this tool (after ue_build_start) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. It provides context but no exclusions or comparison to other status tools.

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