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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that logs are returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose any potential error behavior, rate limits, or additional side effects. It provides minimal context beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks contextual details such as when to call it, what the returned logs contain, or possible error cases. Since there is no output schema, the description should more fully explain the return structure.

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 coverage is 100% because the single parameter build_id is described as 'Build ID to check'. The description does not add any further meaning or constraints to the parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'status and logs of a build', making its function immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scalix_build_create and scalix_status by focusing on build-specific status and logs.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as first creating a build, or how this differs from scalix_status or other status-related tools.

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