get_build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (status and events), implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for transparency beyond the obvious.

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: two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides a practical usage hint. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the purpose and hints at usage mode, but does not describe the structure of returned status/events or explain the alternatives (streaming, direct). For agents to use it effectively, more context about the response format would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage (job_id and event_delivery). The description adds context by advising to use polling mode, which reinforces the default value. This adds modest value but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 that the tool retrieves build status and events for a specific build job. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'build status and events' are specific. The parameter 'job_id' implies it targets a single job, distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like 'get_monitor_builds'.

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 provides a usage hint: 'Use polling mode to check async build progress.' This advises on the preferred event delivery mode. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'streaming' or 'direct' modes, neither does it address scenarios where polling is inappropriate.

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