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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it will not start a new build or deploy. It also discloses the shape of the returned history, which matters since there is no output schema. It omits pagination/ordering and retention behavior for the history.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the resource and returned fields come first, followed by the read-only framing. The enumerated field list is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Without an output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the right call and largely closes that gap, and the read-only intent is explicit. The remaining hole is the limit parameter's semantics and pagination, which neither the schema nor the description covers.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it says nothing about project_id or the limit parameter. It only names build_id/hash/digest, which are outputs, not inputs. An agent gets no guidance on bounding or filtering the history.

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 the specific resource ('history of images the builder produced for the project') and enumerates the content returned (build_id, build state, plan version, source hash, service digests). The closing clause distinguishes it from build/deploy actions, so an agent can tell it is a read-only inspection tool rather than a trigger.

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?

Clearly frames the use case: checking which version is actually built, explicitly 'without starting a new build or deploy.' It gives a condition for use and an implied exclusion, though it does not name a specific sibling tool as the alternative route (e.g. get_deploy_status).

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