ue_build_status

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool returns immediate status unless wait_seconds > 0, in which case it blocks and reports progress. It also notes the default project selection. This is thorough but could mention whether the tool is read-only.

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 concise, with a brief overview followed by a structured parameter list. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes value. Slight verbosity in Italian does not detract significantly.

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 complexity (checking status with optional waiting) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers return types (progress, errors, log tail) and parameter behavior. It could be enhanced by explicitly stating the format of the returned data.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains all three parameters: tail_lines (log line count), uproject (project reference, default to last started), and wait_seconds (waiting behavior). It adds meaningful context about defaults and usage 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 tool checks the status of a compilation started with ue_build_start, returning progress, errors, and log tail. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_build_start (which initiates) and ue_build_unblock (which resolves issues).

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 indicates it should be used after ue_build_start and provides advice on using wait_seconds to avoid polling. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with other status tools, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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