Project build status

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

Annotations already readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which tell the agent it is a safe read. The description adds 'Cheap — safe to call in a polling loop', which provides helpful behavioral context about cost and non-destructiveness beyond 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage aspects. Could mention the return format (e.g., JSON with status fields) for completeness, but current description is nearly sufficient.

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 100% (the one parameter 'ref' is described as 'Project id (uuid) or subdomain'). The description does not add further meaning to the parameter, which is acceptable since schema fully documents it. Score baseline 3.

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 specifies the verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('current build/deploy status'), and the scope ('project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_project' (which likely returns broader project details) and 'check_subdomain' (a different check).

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 explicitly notes cheapness and safety for polling loops, which preemptively guides when to use this tool (frequent calls) vs. more expensive or write operations (siblings like 'refine_project', 'set_secret' are not suitable for polling).

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