get_last_successful_build

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it clearly states that only successful builds are returned and names the included fields. However, it does not cover what happens when no successful build exists or when job_name is invalid, leaving edge-case behavior opaque.

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 short sentences with the core result front-loaded and the use case in a single supplementary sentence. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description states the returned fields and the intended deployment-verification workflow. It leaves some gaps around edge-case behavior, but the core invocation context is sufficiently clear.

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 required parameter job_name is never mentioned in the description, and the schema provides only a bare title with no property description (0% coverage). The description therefore does not compensate for the missing schema guidance, though the parameter name makes its general purpose somewhat inferable.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving the most recent successful build and enumerates its contents (timestamp, duration, parameters, git info). The 'SUCCESSFUL' qualifier and 'last' distinguish it from siblings such as get_build_info or list_recent_builds.

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 'Primary use case' sentence provides a concrete scenario—comparing the returned timestamp against a GitLab MR merge time to verify deployment—so an agent knows when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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