octri_list_builds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that builds are recent and include per-language status, with no mention of pagination, ordering, recency window, permissions, or other operational behavior.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. However, the extreme brevity leaves important details unstated rather than fully earning its place as a complete definition.

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 list tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits pagination, ordering, scope, and any indication of what the per-language status values mean.

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 only 50%: project_id is documented in the schema, but page is not documented in either the schema or the description. The description adds no parameter semantics such as pagination behavior or how the CLI default project fallback works.

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 resource as SDK builds and narrows it to recent builds with per-language status, which is clearer than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_build, diff_builds, or trigger_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 provides no guidance on when to use this list tool versus alternatives like get_build or diff_builds. It also says nothing about prerequisites, scope, or exclusions.

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