get_build_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. 'Check' clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation, and 'background build' signals an asynchronous workflow. It does not describe error cases, but there is no indication of hidden destructive side effects.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, and the only parameter is documented in a minimal, useful way. No redundant or filler content exists.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter status-check tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the essential workflow link to start_build and fully covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the schema only labels build_id as a string. The description compensates by explaining that build_id is 'returned by start_build', giving critical provenance that helps an agent locate the correct value.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Check the status of a background build.' This is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_asset_processor_status, so it relies on the reader to infer the distinction.

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 by stating that build_id comes from start_build, implying the tool is used after starting a build to poll its status. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is sufficiently clear for this simple tool.

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