get_build_status

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying return fields (build state, name, URL) and auto-resolution behavior for prId. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent 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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Purpose is front-loaded, and structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Description covers return values and parameter usage for both modes. No output schema exists, but return info is provided. Consideration of error cases or rate limits is absent but not critical 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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds context that prId auto-resolves latest commit and that project/repository are only needed with prId, which slightly enhances understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it gets CI build status for a commit or pull request, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on build status for commits/PRs, and adds nuance about automatic commit resolution.

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?

Description explains when to use prId vs commitId, and that project/repository are only needed with prId. However, it does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_code_insights or get_commit.

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