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

The description discloses read-only behavior aligned with the readOnlyHint annotation, and goes beyond by explaining what the tool returns (doc + content version + SDK floor) and how paging works. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but those are not essential given the simple read operation and existing annotation.

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 somewhat long, but every sentence carries meaningful guidance—defaults, paging behavior, and reading order. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and then flows naturally into the enum explanation and paging instructions. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the read-order advice), but it does not detract from usability.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload (doc + content version + SDK floor) and the paging protocol. It also covers all 12 enum options, explains the special 'skills' default, and ties the tool into a larger workflow. There are no critical gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 description already covers all three parameters with 100% coverage, and the tool description adds valuable context: it clarifies the default for 'doc' ('skills'), the meaning of 'offset' for byte-based paging, the default for 'max_bytes' (~32000), and the semantics of each enum value. This exceeds what the structured schema alone provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as fetching a Supero build reference, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and naming the resource ('build reference'). It also enumerates the distinct document types available, distinguishing it from other build_* sibling tools that operate on projects, deployments, or bundles.

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 provides explicit usage guidance, including a recommended reading order ('Read 'skills' FIRST, then 'components' + a matching build_get_examples before you author UI') and paging instructions ('when the header says more:true, fetch the next section with offset=<next_offset>'). It also explains the rollup of doc types (e.g., 'landing' derives from compact landing pages) and the meaning of the default values.

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