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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return payload shape ('each file path and full content'), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it omits whether the operation is read-only (implied), how it behaves on an incomplete build, and whether large file sets are paginated or truncated.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource and the precondition are front-loaded and the return shape is stated second. Nothing in the text is redundant.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call path and pre-emptively describes the return value. It is only mildly incomplete in not addressing failure or partial-build conditions.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents buildId. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., where buildId comes from, format expectations), which matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (generated files from a completed build), which is more precise than the bare name suggests. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_build or get_build_spec, so an agent must infer which one returns file contents versus metadata or spec.

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 phrase 'from a completed build' implies a precondition (the build must have finished), which is real usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative statement, no mention of what to do for in-progress builds, and no pointer to get_build or list_builds for obtaining the buildId.

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