list_recent_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the content of the response (timestamps, durations, results) but does not mention ordering, whether the list is newest-first, default limit behavior, or any error/edge cases. A 'list' operation is implicitly read-only, but the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and the key fields included in the results. It is concise and front-loaded with the action, though it could have added brief parameter clarification without losing structure.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 params, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so return values are covered by structure. However, the description omits ordering semantics and the meaning of 'recent' (e.g., descending by timestamp), and does not clarify how limit behaves. These gaps leave an agent to infer important details.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter (job_name or limit). The phrase 'for a job' loosely hints at job_name but gives no detail about the limit parameter or how it affects results. The description fails to compensate for the uninhabited schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent builds for a job'), and clarifies that the response will include timestamps, durations, and results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs (which lists jobs) and get_build_info (which retrieves one build).

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 a history of recent builds for a specific job, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives such as get_last_successful_build or get_build_info. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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