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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: this read does not retry the build and returns the *original submitted* spec rather than current state. However, it says nothing about permission requirements, error behavior for missing/invalid build IDs, or whether the spec is a snapshot versus a live view, so disclosure is partial.

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 verb and resource, with the field enumeration and the key "without retrying" qualifier packed in without filler. Every clause contributes to identifying the tool or its constraints.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the spec fields the caller can expect, which is the main missing structured information. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only the distinction between the original and any current spec version is left slightly under-specified.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single trivial buildId parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no naming, format, or sourcing detail for buildId beyond what the schema already states.

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?

"Get a build's original submitted spec" names a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical enumerates exactly what the spec contains (storyTitle, acceptanceCriteria, stackType, existingFiles, skipTestsFor). It implicitly separates itself from retry_build via "without retrying it," but it never explicitly contrasts with get_build or build_from_spec, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

"Useful for inspecting or reusing a prior build's spec as a template" gives a concrete when-to-use condition (inspection/reuse as template) and implicitly steers toward build_from_spec for the reuse path. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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