Build Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that jobs are asynchronous and that a log excerpt is returned — useful framing, but it doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, or polling semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 tight sentence with zero padding, front-loading the verb and resource.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the two things returned (status and recent log output), which is enough orientation for a tool whose rich parameter schema already documents paging, byte caps, and wait behavior. Slightly more on return shape (e.g., status values) would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents lines, job_id, verbose, log_offset, wait_seconds, and after_revision (max_bytes being the only bare one). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('status and recent log output for asynchronous Sailfish RPM build jobs'). The 'Sailfish RPM' qualifier plus 'asynchronous' distinguishes it from sailfish_android_build_status, though no sibling is named 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 word 'asynchronous' implies this is the polling endpoint after a build is launched, and the schema notes job_id comes from sailfish_build_rpm, but the description itself gives no explicit when/when-not or routing between status, cancel, and obs tools.

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