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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses significant behavior: only the first 25 items are returned, cursors indicate pagination, changed stories are ordered likely-regressions-first, unchanged stories are deliberately omitted, failed stories distinguish render vs interaction errors, and error truncation is indicated. This is rich, accurate behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and resolver rule, and every clause contributes meaningful guidance. It is long because it covers many response details and routing decisions, but some of the return-field enumeration overlaps with the existing output schema. Still, no content is wasted.

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 complex triage tool, the description covers resolution rules, response contents, pagination, ordering, error kinds, and explicit redirection to the correct sibling tools. Given the rich output schema and annotations, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents each parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is solid. The description adds the crucial constraint that exactly one resolver must be provided, which the schema does not enforce. It does not need to repeat individual parameter descriptions because the schema already handles them.

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 starts with a specific action ('Triage one build') and identifies the exact resource and resolvers (commitSha, prNumber, buildId). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling pagination/listing tool by stating what this call does NOT return and pointing to list_build_stories, get_diff, and render_diff_image.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use it for triaging one build and reviewing changed/failed stories; use list_build_stories for unchanged stories or pagination; use get_diff or render_diff_image for images. This makes tool selection unambiguous.

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