ue_build_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that wait_seconds causes blocking and progress reporting, and that uproject defaults to the last build. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema.

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: a single introductory sentence followed by clearly structured parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with purpose.

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 (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and key behaviors adequately. It mentions return aspects like status and log lines but does not detail error handling or prerequisites. Slightly incomplete, but sufficient for an experienced user.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: tail_lines (number of final log lines), uproject (project reference, defaults to last build), wait_seconds (waits and reports progress if >0). This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it checks the status of a compilation started with ue_build_start, mentioning specific states like 'in corso' (in progress), errori, and coda del log. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ue_build_start and ue_build_unblock.

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 implicitly tells when to use it (after starting a build) and gives guidance on using wait_seconds to avoid multiple reads ('meglio un'attesa sola che venti letture'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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