eas_build_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a genuine semantic about the return state (FINISHED + artifact_url = publishable), which is valuable, but it omits whether the call is read-only, what happens on an unknown/in-progress build id, and any auth or project-scoping requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one piece of interpretive guidance that matters. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be documented, and the description still calls out the key status semantics. For a simple two-param read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the undocumented parameters and lack of explicit sibling routing hold it back.

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% for two required parameters. 'By id' loosely implies build_id, but project_path is nowhere explained, and neither parameter receives any format or expected-value guidance. The description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the state of an EAS build by id,' which clearly separates it from eas_build_list, eas_build_start, and eas_build_download. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of the top band, but an agent can identify its role immediately.

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 second sentence gives useful decision context — a FINISHED status with artifact_url set signals readiness to publish — implying this tool precedes a submit/publish step. However, it never says when to call this versus eas_build_list (which presumably also surfaces builds) or what prerequisites exist, leaving usage largely inferred.

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