get_build

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

The description adds cost information ('Cost: 0 credits') and indicates read nature (get). However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or other behavioral traits beyond what is implied. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the key 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 simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (status and URL). It could mention potential errors or timeouts, but overall it is complete for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Get build status and the live preview URL,' specifying the action (get) and the resource (build status and URL). The sibling tools (build_company, message_build, stop_build) are different actions, so it is distinct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings. It implies usage after calling build_company via the parameter description, but lacks direct instructions or exclusions.

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