get_build_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contents in detail, including task status, architecture, package name, sign-task presence, and linked builds—critical for understanding the tool's behavior. It also explains why linked builds matter (repos mixed into buildroot), which is valuable beyond a generic summary. It stops short of stating read-only nature explicitly, but that is implied.

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 two paragraphs of roughly 60 words, front-loaded with the core purpose and then detailing the return contents. Every sentence adds value—the linked-builds note is especially important. No redundancy or fluff; it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential semantics: what is returned and a key nuance (linked builds). It does not mention error handling, authentication, or performance, but these are not critical for a read-only getter with a clear output schema. The description sufficiently positions the tool for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, build_id, is documented only as an integer in the schema with no description. The tool description does not mention build_id at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it doesn't. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory from the tool name, preventing a score of 1, but it still falls short of providing any guidance (e.g., where to find build_id).

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('build details') followed by a concise list of what's included: tasks, statuses, packages, architectures. It further elaborates on the summary content, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_products or get_sign_task_status. The tool's purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies when to use it (when you need build details, especially the complete task list and statuses) and even mentions a specific use case (reproducing a rebuild via linked builds). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity against siblings like get_failed_tasks or get_sign_task_status that also provide build-related info.

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