copr_build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get the status,' implying a read operation with no side effects, but fails to mention auth requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens for invalid IDs.

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, front-loaded with the key information. Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, straightforward task), it is appropriately concise, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema, so return values are covered. However, given the low parameter coverage and lack of usage guidelines, the description is minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks context for an agent to use it correctly in all scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to the parameter. It only says 'by its ID,' which adds no extra information beyond the field name in the schema (build_id). No examples, constraints, or format details are provided.

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 'Get the status of a Copr build by its ID' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like copr_list_builds (which lists builds) and copr_get_build_log (which retrieves logs).

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 usage when you have a build ID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copr_list_builds or copr_get_build_log. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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