[Read] Get build processing status

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

The description begins with 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral disclosure since no annotations are provided. It also specifies exactly what data is returned (processing state and expiration flag) and implies the tool does not have side effects. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error scenarios.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the critical 'Read-only' safety info, then states the exact purpose and examples, followed by the usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, return content, and even the typical workflow context (poll after upload). The presence of sibling tools does not create a need for more details, as the description already differentiates and fully explains the tool.

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%: both appId and buildId have detailed descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantics about these parameters beyond referring to 'a build.' Since the schema already fully documents the parameters, the description provides no extra value, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('processing state and expiration flag for a build'), specifying concrete example states (PROCESSING, VALID, INVALID, FAILED). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like asc_build_get (full build info) and asc_build_upload_status (focused on upload) by explicitly saying it gets 'just' the processing state.

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 an explicit use case: 'use this to poll after an upload.' It clearly implies when to use this tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other needs. This is clear context but lacks exclusions/alternatives.

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