Cek status pengajuan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only status lookup, enumerates the possible statuses, and notes the conditional build-progress behavior for approved requests. This is adequate for a low-risk check operation.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part adds useful information: what is checked, the possible statuses, and the conditional progress detail.

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 single-parameter status-check tool, the description covers the core behavior and expected result categories. There is no output schema, but the description's mention of statuses and build progress provides sufficient guidance for an agent to call and interpret the tool without missing critical context.

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 single parameter requestId is already documented as coming from submit_app's reply. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 ('Lihat') and resource ('sebuah pengajuan'), and clarifies the exact scope: status values (menunggu/disetujui/ditolak) plus build progress when approved. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like submit_app or update_app, which are about creating or modifying submissions.

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 tool is clearly positioned as the status lookup after a submission exists, and the requestId parameter description says it comes from submit_app's reply. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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