get_gradle_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape and status enum values, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether statuses are eventually consistent, or any rate-limit/auth considerations.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then efficiently documents the argument and return value. Every sentence adds useful information with no wasted 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the full return object, yet it still helpfully summarizes the status and result fields. For a simple one-parameter status-check tool, this is nearly complete, though polling behavior or terminal-state handling would make it fully comprehensive.

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 the single job_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so partially by explaining that job_id is the ID returned by run_gradle_build, but it does not add format details or validation constraints beyond that source hint.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check the status and result of a Gradle build job. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling run_gradle_build by framing this tool as the status-checking counterpart.

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 ties the job_id parameter to run_gradle_build, which gives clear usage context for when this tool should be called. It does not provide exclusions or polling guidance, such as how often to call it or when to stop, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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