status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the enumerable states, what needs_input means, that progress and a presentation card are returned, and that wait blocks up to 90 seconds. It omits any auth/permission context and, critically, gives no indication of what happens if neither or both identifiers are supplied.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the returned state values before moving to the blocking behavior of wait. Every sentence carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required, and the description still adds useful state semantics. However, for a tool with three parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the absence of any job_id/artifact_id guidance leaves a real gap an agent must guess around.

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 for all three parameters. It explains wait well (range and blocking semantics), but job_id and artifact_id are never mentioned, leaving the agent with no guidance on which identifier to pass or whether they are mutually exclusive.

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 the specific resource (build state) and enumerates the exact states it can return, which lets an agent recognize this as a status-check tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like inspect or list_artifacts, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative is named. The note that 'wait (0 to 90 seconds) holds the call open until the build finishes' implies the poll-versus-block choice, but the agent must infer when polling is appropriate versus blocking, and no sibling (e.g. inspect) is offered as an alternative.

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