Get build run status

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the annotations already signal a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by indicating the response includes progress, per-stage results, and errors, which goes beyond the annotation alone. It does not deeply discuss lifecycle or polling details, but that is not a major gap for a simple status check.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes only relevant details. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 has one required parameter, an output schema is present, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The description explains what the tool does and references the preceding operation, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 schema fully documents the single `session_id` parameter with a description ('Build session id'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, but none is needed given the schema already covers it.

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 states the action ('Check the status of a draft's build run') and identifies the specific resource ('started by repovive_build_prepare_judge_target'). It also lists the kind of information returned (progress, per-stage results, errors), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like repovive_build_cancel_run.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the tool is for checking a build run started by repovive_build_prepare_judge_target. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is specific enough for an agent to infer the intended workflow.

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