octri_get_build

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return content (per-language lifecycle phase, failure messages) and implies a read-only fetch, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for a missing build, or whether the state is live or cached.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information about what is returned.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by summarizing the returned state, but leaves the build_id parameter undocumented and offers no guidance on usage context or error conditions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%: project_id is documented in the schema, but build_id is not, and the description explains neither. It does not clarify build_id's format or the project fallback behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (one build's current state) and enumerates the meaningful contents: each language's lifecycle phase and failure messages. This naturally contrasts with the plural octri_list_builds, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never points to alternatives such as octri_list_builds, octri_wait_for_build, or octri_diff_builds. An agent must infer the context entirely.

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