ue_package_status

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it reports the current phase, errors, and final output path. It explains that wait_seconds > 0 causes the tool to wait up to that limit, returning the current phase instead of immediate results. This is good transparency for a status tool, though it doesn't mention rate limits or what happens if no packaging job exists.

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 clear opening sentence, a list of what is reported, and an Args section. It is not overly verbose, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Overall, it is effectively sized.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the return information (phase, errors, path) and the wait behavior. It does not detail error handling or the output format in depth, but for a status tool it is reasonably complete.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: tail_lines (how many final log lines to return), uproject (which project, defaults to last started), and wait_seconds (if >0, waits for completion). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 'Stato del packaging avviato con ue_package_start' (status of packaging started with ue_package_start) and lists the reported information: current phase (Cook, Stage, Package, Archive), errors, and path of the executable at completion. This distinguishes it from siblings like ue_package_start (starts packaging) and ue_build_status (build status).

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 usage after starting packaging via ue_package_start and explains parameters like wait_seconds for polling behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ue_build_status or when not to use it, though the context is clear enough.

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