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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful ordering trait ('newest first'), which is not in the annotations, but says nothing about volume, truncation, or whether all builds or only recent ones are returned.

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?

One short sentence with the ordering trait front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse for the ambiguity it leaves unresolved.

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?

Low-complexity single-parameter read with an output schema and rich annotations, so not much is required. Still, 'recent' is unexplained (how many? is there a default window?) and the builds/commits terminology mismatch is not resolved, leaving minor gaps an agent would want filled.

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% with a single required project_id fully documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'for a project' merely echoes the parameter without adding format or scoping detail beyond it.

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+resource (list builds for a project) plus ordering (newest first), which is concrete. It does not differentiate against the very similar sibling projects_builds_log, and the title's 'commits' vs. the description's 'builds' leaves the resource slightly ambiguous.

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 on when to use this rather than projects_builds_log, projects_get, or projects_changes_list. The closest sibling is left entirely unaddressed, so the agent must infer selection from names alone.

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