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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the exact data fields returned, which is useful transparency for an inspection call, but does not cover error behavior (e.g., unknown build_id) or rate limits.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second locates the tool within Depot's service hierarchy. No wasted words, though the service-path sentence is somewhat 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 single-param read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance to sibling build-inspection tools, which is minor given the clear field listing.

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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its source). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Get) and resource (one container build) and enumerates the returned fields (status, timestamps, duration, time saved, step counts). This distinguishes it from depot_list_builds, but the description does not explicitly name that sibling or other alternatives.

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 names the build_id and its source ('from depot_list_builds'), implying the typical workflow of listing then getting. But it does not state when to use this vs. depot_list_builds or the step-specific siblings (depot_get_build_steps, depot_get_build_step_logs).

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