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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds some useful content about the return, namely pending drafts and latest comments from real people, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, error behavior, or what a build record otherwise contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the phrase 'from real people' is slightly odd and could be made more useful.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explicitly say this returns a build identified by slug and clarify access scope. It partially covers included content but leaves key invocation and behavioral details 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?

The single required parameter 'slug' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. It gives no hint about what a slug is, expected format, or how it identifies the builder's build.

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 identifies the resource ('one of the builder’s builds') and implies retrieval, but uses the vague noun phrase 'Details of' rather than a clear verb and never mentions the slug parameter. It partially distinguishes from the sibling 'list_my_builds' by referring to one build rather than many.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_my_builds, nor any prerequisite or exclusion described. The only implied usage is retrieving a single build, which is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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