build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '조회합니다' (queries) clearly communicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description goes beyond a bare statement by listing what the query returns (added parts list, total price). It does not expand on edge cases such as an empty build, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is adequate transparency.

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, compact sentence in Korean that front-loads the key action ('현재 빌드 상태를 조회합니다') and parenthetically includes the important output details. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity—zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only purpose—the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It states what the tool does and what information it returns, which is all an agent needs to know to make a successful call.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description does not need to explain parameters. The description instead focuses on the output content, which is appropriate since schema coverage is vacuously 100%.

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 uses a specific verb '조회합니다' (queries) with a specific resource '현재 빌드 상태' (current build status), and explicitly names what the status contains: '추가된 부품 목록, 합계 가격' (list of added parts, total price). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_add, build_remove, and build_check_compatibility, which all involve mutation or validation rather than simple status lookup.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, the purpose is clearly a read-only query of the build state, so an agent can infer it should be used when needing to see added parts or total price. Sibling names like build_add and build_remove further imply this is the status-check tool, but the guidance remains implicit rather than stated.

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