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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys tenant scoping, but omits ordering guarantees, what a build record contains, and whether the result set is capped or paginated beyond what the schema hints at. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope (tenant) is stated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than maximally 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 simple read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It covers scope and the schema covers pagination, but the agent gets no sense of result content, ordering, or how this differs from get_build.

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 both limit and offset are fully documented there with defaults and maximums. The description adds only the vague notion of recency and no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource: list builds, scoped to the tenant. It reads as distinct from the singular get_build sibling by verb alone, but it never names or differentiates itself from that sibling, so an agent must infer the list-vs-get split.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_build or stream_build. The word "recent" implies a browsing use case but gives no threshold or condition for choosing this tool over other build tools.

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