构建状态

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the returned data categories, but it does not explain behavior like in-progress status handling, whether the call blocks until a build finishes, or how status values are represented.

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, direct sentence that conveys the core action and target items. It has no filler, and the verb is front-loaded, making it that it is genuinely concise without being vague in its core intent.

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, the description must explain what an agent should expect back, but it only lists 'status, artifacts, and log paths' without detailing values, enum possibilities for status, or shape of the response. This incompleteness leaves a agent uncertain about how to consume the results or handle in-flight builds.

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 no descriptions for projectId or jobId, leaving no meaning beyond field names. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description was expected to clarify how these parameters function, but it only refers to 'build task' without linking to the actual parameters.

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 tool's purpose: query build task status, artifacts, and log paths. It is specific enough to distinguish from build_start/build_cancel, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from cocos_build_logs, which could imply log content rather than log paths.

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 no explicit usage context, when-to-use, or exclusions. It only states the core function, leaving the agent to infer when to use this over siblings like cocos_build_logs or cocos_build_list based on the name alone.

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