get_build_status

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Return', which implies a read-only snapshot, but it does not clarify blocking behavior, staleness, absence of a build, or how state is represented. The presence of await_build and get_build_wait siblings makes the missing blocking distinction significant.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to defining what the tool returns, which is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and several closely related sibling tools, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot tell whether the call returns immediately or waits, what the response structure looks like, or when to choose this over the sibling tools. A few additional sentences on these points would be needed.

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 there is no parameter semantic burden; the empty input schema already covers everything. The description does not need to explain parameters, making the zero-parameter baseline appropriate.

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 ('Return') and a concrete resource ('build process state and latest completed version'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_build or await_build, but the resource is specific enough to be understood.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus get_build, await_build, get_build_wait, or start_build_wait. It does not state whether this is a non-blocking status check or whether it should follow a build start, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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