ue_package_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns current phase, errors, and final executable path, and describes wait behavior. No contradictions.

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 short introductory sentence, then parameter explanations in a structured format. No redundant text.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (phase, errors, executable path). It could be more explicit about the return format, but it is sufficient for a status tool. Context with sibling tools is clear.

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%, but the description explains all three parameters clearly: tail_lines (lines of log to return), uproject (project reference, defaults to last packagestart), and wait_seconds (wait limit if >0). This adds meaning beyond schema types.

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 reports status of packaging started with ue_package_start, listing phases (Cook, Stage, Package, Archive), errors, and final executable path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_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 when to use (checking packaging progress) and explains wait_seconds behavior (if >0 waits, else returns immediately). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tool suggestions.

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