search_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the output format (task count, failed count, release state, packages as NVRs), explains behavior when `project` is set (matched packages on a `match:` line, others summarized and possibly truncated), and notes pagination. This gives a clear picture of what the tool returns and its limitations, though it does not explicitly mention read-only status or auth requirements.

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 well-structured: it opens with a clear one-line purpose, then explains the output format (useful context), and ends with a concise arg list. It is a bit detailed on output shape, but it is relevant and earns its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no fluff.

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 has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: pagination, filtering, and output structure. It also anticipates follow-up questions by providing NVRs and match lines. Minor omissions like error handling or result limits do not detract significantly, making it complete for a search tool.

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% (no descriptions in schema). The description compensates fully with an Args section: 'page: Page number (default 1)', 'project: Filter by project/package name', and 'is_running: Filter by running status.' This adds meaning and clearly explains each parameter beyond the raw type and default, enabling correct usage.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'builds' on ALBS, and notes it 'Returns a page of builds.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_build_info (which likely retrieves a single build) and create_build (which creates). The mention of pagination and filtering further clarifies its role.

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 usage: when you need to search or filter builds. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you have a specific build ID, use get_build_info). No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer which tool fits a given scenario.

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