build_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the two response modes (running with elapsed time, or final pass/fail with error count, first errors, APK paths, log path) and discloses a critical lifecycle constraint, 'Jobs live only as long as this server process.' It does not state whether retrieval is idempotent, whether the job is consumed/discarded on read, or how to poll.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information (what is reported, then the lifecycle caveat). The lists of summary fields are dense but each item is informative; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully inlines the return contents, and it adds the process-lifetime warning that an agent must know. It stops short of covering polling behavior or what happens if the job id is unknown/already finished, which would complete the picture.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Job id returned by gradle_build with background=true,' which the description merely echoes. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report a background gradle_build') and immediately scopes it to jobs started with background=true, which cleanly separates it from the sibling gradle_build that launches builds. An agent can tell what this returns (running state vs. final summary) without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical '(started with background=true)' establishes the precondition for calling this tool and implicitly routes the agent to gradle_build for non-background builds. There is no explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion or polling cadence advice, so it falls short of a full 5.

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