build_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'recently-finished' means (e.g., time window). The description is too minimal for a tool that may have side effects or access restrictions.

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 only two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second adds essential detail about tags. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 that there are zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core functionality and relationships to siblings. However, it lacks specifics like the definition of 'recently-finished' or any pagination details, but these may be covered by the output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not add any confusion. It correctly omits parameter info since none exist.

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 verb 'Show' and the resources 'running builds and recently-finished artifacts'. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'includes per-build tags (used with build_tail / build_fetch / build_deploy)', which clarifies its unique role.

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 context by stating it provides tags for other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use build_status versus alternatives like build_help or build_start. No when-not-to guidance is provided.

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