build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the build is asynchronous, that the status can be running/done/error, and that progress information is included. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error payload details, but the core behavior is meaningfully disclosed.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and packs in the async nature, possible statuses, and progress. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 status tool, the description covers the key context: it queries by job_id, is asynchronous, returns status values, and includes progress. A small gap remains because there is no output schema and no annotation, so the exact response shape and any polling/repeated-call semantics are left unspecified.

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 schema already fully documents job_id as 'Идентификатор job из build', and the description only repeats that the status is queried by job_id. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 identifies this as a status lookup for an asynchronous build keyed by job_id, and enumerates expected states (running/done/error) plus progress. It is specific enough to be distinguished from the sibling tool 'build', but it does not explicitly name or contrast that alternative.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'build'. The mention of job_id implies it should be used after an asynchronous build, but the description does not state this prerequisite, polling behavior, or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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