BugSnag: Get Build

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds useful output expectations: a JSON object with build details, stability metrics, and whether project targets are met. This goes beyond the schema and enriches the behavioral picture without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Parameters, Output Description, Use Cases, Examples, and Hints. While it is somewhat verbose and duplicates schema parameter text, every section earns its place with actionable guidance (e.g., examples, expected output, hints). It is not as terse as ideal but remains effective.

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 simple read-only get-by-ID tool, the definition covers the required and optional params, provides output shape, and offers concrete use cases plus a hint on locating build IDs. It lacks error-handling details, but given the annotations, simple interface, and 100% schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Both parameters have thorough descriptions in the input schema (100% schema description coverage). The tool description repeats these parameter descriptions but does not add new semantic details such as formats, allowed values, or default behaviors, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'Get more details for a specific build by its ID' – a clear verb+object statement that names the resource (build) and the lookup mechanism (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bugsnag_get_release by focusing on builds, and the title reinforces the purpose.

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 Use Cases section gives explicit scenarios (view build metadata, analyze error spikes, check stability targets) and the hint references the 'List builds' tool as a prerequisite for obtaining build IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like get_release, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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