repo_build_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating it is a read-only check of an in-memory background worker and by specifying the output fields (task_id, status, parsed file progress, error details). This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide, though it does not disclose edge cases like unknown task IDs.

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 well-organized with clear sections for usage, non-usage, follow-up, and output. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, and the most important scoping detail (--async-build) is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it explains the operation, when to call it, what not to do, what the output contains, and what to use afterward. The absence of an output schema is compensated by listing the expected JSON fields.

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 100% and the task_id parameter is already well documented as the ID returned by a previous async build call. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 identifies the tool as a status/progress query for a background index build task under --async-build, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning repo_search and repo_map as the post-completion alternatives.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (polling after an async build was started) and when-not-to-use guidance (synchronous builds or when queries already succeed). It also names the correct follow-up tools, making the decision boundary unambiguous.

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