build_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It strongly implies a read-only informational call through the phrase 'what this server is running on' and the listed status fields, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or caching behavior.

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 a single sentence that packs the essential status categories into a concise, scannable list. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema available, the description covers the key semantic categories: artifact, build time, seasons, progress, and definition health. An agent has enough context to invoke and understand the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. The description adds meaningful context about the actual status fields returned, which helps an agent interpret the output without needing parameter guidance.

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 clearly explains what build_status provides: database artifact, build time, seasons, progress state, and definition counts. It is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like coverage or describe_schema, though it lacks a direct verb phrase.

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 description implies this tool is for inspecting server build/status information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as coverage or describe_schema. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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