vbstudio_build_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful output example (e.g. SUCCESSFUL), but says nothing about error behavior for an invalid build number, auth requirements, or what other status values exist.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and distinguishing identifiers with zero waste. Ideal size for a simple status query.

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 status lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description plus the schema's repo documentation give an agent enough to call it correctly. It could be richer about return values or failure modes, but nothing essential is missing.

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 only 33% (only repo is documented). The description partially compensates by naming the two required parameters as the build identifiers ('job name and build number'), but adds no format details (e.g. jobName naming convention, buildNumber range) and does not mention the repo parameter at all.

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 (Get) and resource (status of a VB Studio CI build) keyed by job name and build number. The purpose is clear and implicitly distinguishable from trigger/run tools, but it never names a sibling (e.g. vbstudio_trigger_build) to make the selection explicit, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the post-trigger status check rather than, say, run_build or vbstudio_job_params.

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