get_build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return type (Dictionary with application and build info), which adds transparency. However, it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but for a read-only operation this is acceptable.

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 short and includes structured 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately concise without missing critical information.

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 that there is only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description provides enough information for a simple 'get status' tool. It covers the basic workflow, though it could mention potential errors or prerequisites.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description adds 'The build identifier' for the build_id parameter, which is only marginally more informative than the schema's title 'Build Id'. No additional constraints or format details are provided.

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 it gets the status of a build, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_builds', which likely retrieves a list of builds.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_builds' or 'get_build_step_log'. There are no exclusions or conditions mentioned.

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