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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that results are paginated despite a cursor parameter, nor how limit interacts with the returned set, nor any workspace scoping behavior.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: three nouns with no verb. Nothing in the sentence is actionable, so concision is not a virtue here.

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?

A nine-parameter list tool with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and filtering by state/origin/type plus cursor pagination — none of which the description addresses. Far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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?

Nine parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no per-parameter text in the description. The three enums (state, origin, build_type) and the cursor/limit pagination pair are entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap 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?

The text 'Shared builds, saved revisions and readiness' is a noun fragment that never states a verb or that this is a listing operation. It gestures at the resource but an agent must infer 'list' from the tool name alone, and it does not distinguish itself from builds_get, builds_open, builds_save or builds_archive.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the six sibling builds_* tools. The phrase 'saved revisions' might hint that saved-state builds are covered, but nothing tells an agent when to pick this over builds_get.

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