get_build

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds real value on top: what the default step selection returns, how "all" scales, and the diagnostic behavior where failed steps name the dependency behind "dependency failed". That last detail is non-obvious output semantics an agent could not get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then immediately the parameter that needs explanation. Nearly every sentence carries information; only the line-broken layout makes it slightly more sprawling than needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still summarizes content and adds the one behavior (dependency-failure naming) that matters for interpreting results. Missing coverage of steps="none" and no cross-reference to get_build_log are the only residual gaps.

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 50%, so the description must carry weight for the undocumented parameters, and it does: it explains steps="relevant" vs "all" and implies that recent_steps controls the "newest few" shown. The steps="none" value is never explained, leaving one gap in a three-value enum.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and enumerates what the response contains (status, timing, derivation, outputs, products, metrics, steps), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_build_log or get_job, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 clear usage guidance for the steps parameter, including the default and the cost trade-off ("large for big closures"). It says nothing about when to call this instead of get_build_log, get_job, or get_queue, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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