get_build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output (structured errors, warnings, progress), which adds value, but it does not disclose side effects (likely none), edge-case behavior (e.g., malformed input), or the exact structure of the returned data. The phrase 'last build output' is slightly ambiguous given that the tool takes a build_log parameter, not a reference to a stored log.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and expected output without extraneous words. It is efficiently front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture: it tells what it parses and what it returns. It is slightly incomplete in not detailing the output structure or handling of incomplete logs, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 the schema already describes the parameter as 'Raw build log output to parse for errors and warnings.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('last build output'), and the result ('structured errors, warnings, and progress') makes the tool's function unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like build_target or get_test_results, which handle building or test results rather than parsing build logs.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other build-related tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., running a build first) or exclusions (e.g., when to use raw log viewers). The intended usage is implied but not stated.

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