Get Build & Deploy Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds the key behavior 'asynchronous' and implies a read-only status check via 'check', but does not disclose return format, error handling, or side effects. Some context is provided, but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence of ~14 words, front-loaded with the action, no redundant phrasing. All information is useful.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly sufficient, but it lacks detail on what the status response looks like. However, the core purpose and input are clear, making it fairly complete.

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 100% with a clear description for taskId ('returned by deploy_artifact'). The description's phrase 'returned as a task id' reinforces this but adds no new information 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?

Description states 'Check the asynchronous build/deploy task status for a deployment' with a clear verb ('Check'), resource ('build/deploy task status'), and context ('async', 'returned as a task id'). It is distinct from sibling get_deployed_artifact_status by focusing on task status rather than artifact status.

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?

No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned. The description implies usage after initiating a deployment via 'returned as a task id' and 'asynchronous', but does not reference deploy_artifact or contrast with get_deployed_artifact_status.

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