get_build_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds context about the optional inclusion of various data categories, which is useful but does not contradict annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or performance, but given the annotation coverage, the bar is lower.

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 a single, complete sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and the possibility of including various result components.

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 presence of an output schema (not needing return description), and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. It could be slightly more explicit about how build identification parameters relate, but the schema handles that. Overall, adequate for the complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; the optional includes are already detailed in the schema. No additional context is provided for parameter semantics.

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 retrieves detailed build results, with specific optional components listed (tests, artifacts, changes, statistics, dependencies). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_build or get_build_status, which likely provide more basic or status-only data.

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 detailed results with optional includes are needed, but does not explicitly contrast with simpler alternatives like get_build or get_build_status. The phrase 'optionally includes' gives context for when to use this over more specific tools, but no direct exclusions or alternative names are mentioned.

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