Get deploy status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a post-deployment status check, but does not describe response shape, failure behavior, or whether the status is polled or one-shot.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the critical parameter provenance is given in the second sentence.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only status tool, the description provides enough to select and invoke it correctly. The main gap is no description of return fields or status values, but this does not block correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain task_id beyond 'string'. It does exactly that by stating it is the TaskId returned by deploy_integration_artifact. This is meaningful semantic guidance even though format details are not given.

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 ('Check') and a clear resource ('build and deploy status of an artifact'). The reference to the TaskId returned by deploy_integration_artifact clearly distinguishes this from artifact-listing and configuration-retrieval siblings.

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 clear context: this tool should be used with the TaskId returned by deploy_integration_artifact. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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