build_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It transparently describes a read-only listing operation from a specific configuration. While it doesn't mention potential behaviors like authentication needs or performance, it covers the essential behavior without contradiction.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and context. Every part is relevant, no redundancy 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?

Given the tool has one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core functionality but falls short of completeness. It does not explain how to use the 'project' parameter or what the output format is, leaving gaps for a simple list 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?

The schema describes one optional parameter 'project' but the description does not explain its purpose or effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning, forcing the agent to infer or ignore the parameter, which hinders correct invocation.

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 'list' and the resource 'collected build artifacts', specifies the source configuration file and key, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'build_info' (likely build details) and 'build_run' (triggering 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The usage is implied (when you want to list artifacts), but there are no descriptions of when not to use it or comparisons to sibling tools, which would improve decision-making.

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