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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content (status and error details), which is genuinely useful, but it never confirms this is a side-effect-free read, nor mentions auth requirements, polling behavior, or rate limits.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the return-content qualifier attached compactly. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the parenthetical return summary substitutes adequately for a documented response shape, and the one required param is fully described. Missing only the operational context (read-only nature, polling) that would make it fully self-contained.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The build ID.'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax, format, or source-of-ID detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 (get) and resource (build) scoped by ID, and the parenthetical '(status and error details)' signals it returns state rather than files or spec. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_build_files/get_build_spec but never names those siblings or stream_build explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as stream_build (for live updates) or list_builds (for finding an ID). The intended use can be inferred, but nothing is stated.

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