get_build_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety. It does add context about what the summary includes (e.g., whether sources changed, resource usage, timing), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential edge cases such as behavior when no build exists or whether the query is expensive. Given that annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Summarise the latest build') and then lists the elements covered. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could be considered slightly packed with information. It earns a 4 for being concise and clear.

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 read-only summary tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the result will contain. It does not mention failure modes (e.g., no build found) or prerequisite states, but these are minor for a status query. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect.

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 has only one parameter (project) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining what the parameter means. The description never mentions 'project' or indicates that the parameter identifies which project's build to summarize. The tool name and context make it inferable, but the description adds no semantic value for the parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Summarise the latest build' and lists the specific elements it covers (outputs, timestamps, source changes, resource usage, timing, error/warning counts). It is specific about the resource (build) and the action (summarise). It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but the content makes it distinct from detailed tools like get_utilization or get_timing_summary.

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 implies usage (when you want a summary of the build), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus more detailed alternatives like get_timing_summary, get_utilization, or get_messages. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer that this is the 'overview' tool.

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