[Read] Get build upload status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and adds valuable context about the return content (state plus validation errors/warnings). It does not cover failure behavior or authentication, but for a simple read-only status checker, this is reasonably transparent.

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 extremely concise: one sentence broken into two short fragments. It leads with 'Read-only' and the verb 'Gets', immediately conveying the action and safety. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted text.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description adequately covers what it does, what input it expects (contextually via asc_build_upload), and what it returns (state and errors). It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid ID), but for this level of simplicity, the coverage is solid.

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 provides full coverage for the only parameter, buildUploadId, with a description that states it is returned by asc_build_upload. The tool description repeats this same information, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 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 states the tool's purpose: it gets the state of a build upload, listing the possible states (AWAITING_UPLOAD, PROCESSING, FAILED, COMPLETE). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like asc_build_status by explicitly tying it to 'a build upload started with asc_build_upload'.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: after starting a build upload with asc_build_upload. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives, but the pairing with asc_build_upload is a strong implicit guideline.

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