Change Status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds real value by disclosing that it automatically fetches the latest completed buildset when not in the pipeline, shows live status with jobs/elapsed time/buildset UUID, and can reduce output size with `brief`. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then uses a scannable Args block. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: state-dependent behavior, parameter meaning, defaults, alternatives, and recommended polling mode. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 the rich annotations, 4 simple parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main invocation modes well. The only slight gap is that it never explicitly tells the agent that one of `change` or `url` must be supplied, while the schema marks all parameters as optional.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, the Args section fully documents all four parameters: accepted formats for `change`, default behavior for `tenant`, `url` as an alternative to change+tenant, and the purpose of `brief`. This completely compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 "Pipeline status for a specific change or PR/MR," which is an unambiguous verb+resource+scope definition. It also distinguishes itself from generic status tools by explaining live status vs. auto-fetching the latest completed buildset, and it is appropriately distinct from sibling get_status/list_build tools.

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 gives useful guidance: it explains what happens when the change is in the pipeline vs. not, and it recommends the `brief` mode for repeated polls. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when this tool should not be used, so it falls slightly short of full usage guidance.

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