install_status

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: a 45-second blocking wait, three enumerated outcomes with their payloads, and an idempotency guarantee ('changes nothing') that is consistent with readOnlyHint=true. This is exactly the kind of timing and response-shape context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and when to call it, then packs the outcome enumeration into one tight sentence, closing with the side-effect disclaimer. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 fully compensates by enumerating the three possible return states and what each contains, plus the timeout and retry semantics. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents 'repo' including its owner/repo format. The description only restates that it is the repo 'given to install_tool', adding no new syntax or constraint information.

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 precise verb+resource ('Check on an install') and explicitly ties it to the install_tool workflow, so an agent can distinguish it from install_tool, list_installed_tools, and use_tool without opening any 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?

Gives the exact triggering condition (install_tool replied the build is still running), the retry condition (call it again if still installing), and the exclusion (for a never-installed repo, call install_tool). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both explicit.

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