Android Build Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output includes recent log output and that it reaches a remote host, which is modest extra context, but it says nothing about the polling/wait behavior or failure semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler that conveys both the list and single-read modes. Every clause earns its place.

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 nine-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not convey the wait/poll semantics, the meaning of after_revision's de-duplication, or the shape of a status result. The rich schema compensates for parameter gaps, but return-value behavior remains under-described.

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%, so all nine parameters (including lines, wait_seconds, poll_interval, after_revision) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that baseline, so 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing remote Android/AppSupport build jobs, or reading one job's status plus recent log output. The dual-mode framing distinguishes it from the mutation siblings sailfish_android_build and sailfish_android_build_cancel, though it never names an alternative 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 two operating modes (list vs. read one job) are implied by the phrasing, and the schema's job_id note says to omit it to list. However, the description never states when to reach for this versus sailfish_build_status or how it fits into a build-then-poll workflow, so usage is only implied.

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