build_progress_status

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

With no annotations present, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It conveys a read/query intent, but it does not disclose poll/stream behavior, whether it errors for a non-running build, whether it is idempotent, or anything about the returned progress payload. This is minimal disclosure beyond the tool's name.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, which is appropriate for a single-purpose status-query tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), so the description provides the essential selection cue. However, it leaves out behavioral and return-value details that the absence of annotations and output schema would normally require, making it adequate but not complete.

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 provides only a string field named 'Build Id' with no description, and the tool description does not explain build_id's format, provenance, or validity conditions. The only semantic contribution is inferring that the build_id must reference a running build, which is insufficient to fully compensate for 0% schema description coverage.

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 the action ('Query') and the exact resource ('the live progress of a running build'), which cleanly identifies it as a status-read tool. This distinguishes it from sibling actions such as build_project, build_cancel, parse_build_errors, and explain_build_error without needing to inspect the schema.

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 phrase 'of a running build' implies it is meant for checking an active build, but there is no explicit when-to-use instruction or any mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that it should not be used for completed builds, canceled builds, or build diagnostics.

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