eco_build_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns a summary of all ECOs and their ECNs with blocking counts, and the condition for build readiness (all ECNs in CLOSED or IMPLEMENTED status). This is transparent about what the tool does and its read-only nature.

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, front-loading the core purpose in the first line, then adding essential details about return structure and condition. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 schema and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's functionality and return value. It could benefit from noting whether the summary includes details like counts per status, but it is complete enough for typical use.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter, providing its description (project ID or git repo URL). The description adds no further parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb ('Check build readiness') and the resource ('all ECOs/ECNs'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like eco_list or check_manufacturing_status by focusing on whether ECOs/ECNs are resolved to permit a build.

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 explains the tool's purpose—checking build readiness—and even specifies that it powers the Build button in the UI. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative status checks, though the context suggests it's for ECO/ECN resolution specifically.

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