komodo_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 disclosure burden. It does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or result size, and only obliquely implies no filtering via 'all builds'. For a list endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing. The 'Returns:' sentence, however, largely restates the first line and is redundant given an output schema already exists, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials and need not explain return values. It is nonetheless missing any routing cue distinguishing it from komodo_get_build and the other list siblings, which is the main gap an agent would hit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter claims are made that could mislead.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List all builds'), which is unambiguous on its own and implicitly contrasts with the single-item komodo_get_build. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many other komodo_list_* siblings (servers, stacks, deployments, api_keys).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus komodo_get_build or the other list tools. The phrase 'all builds' weakly implies a bulk/overview use case, but no conditions or alternatives are stated.

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