check_build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'checks' status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, response format (though output schema exists), or whether it polls or returns cached data. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (status checking), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, and parameter meaning, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent invocation.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. With one parameter ('task_id'), the schema provides the title and type, but the description doesn't explain what 'task_id' represents (e.g., from a previous build operation) or its format. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage (100% for the single parameter), but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of semantic details.

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 '检查 Docker 镜像构建状态' (Check Docker image build status) clearly states the verb ('检查' - check) and resource ('Docker 镜像构建状态' - Docker image build status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_docker_image' (which creates) and 'get_docker_image_url' (which retrieves URL), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'check_' tools (e.g., 'check_ies_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after initiating a build), exclusions, or relationships with siblings like 'build_docker_image' (which might trigger the build) or 'get_ies_events' (which might show related events).

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