list_asset_builds

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is a basic transparency signal. However, it does not mention any additional context such as access requirements, pagination behavior, or whether the result is limited to the current project context. This is acceptable for a simple list but not rich.

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, short sentence that contains no filler. Every word earns its place: 'List' specifies the action, 'asset builds' the resource, and 'for a project' the context. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 has 4 optional parameters fully documented in the schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is adequate for a straightforward list operation, but it lacks any information about return format, ordering, or relationship to project_id. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The parameter names and descriptions are self-explanatory (limit, status, asset_type, project_id).

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 ('asset builds') with a scoping phrase ('for a project'), making the core function clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like ftrack_list_asset_versions or list_shots, so it misses the differentiator needed for a 5.

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 tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling list tools (e.g., ftrack_list_asset_versions, list_shots), the description fails to explain what makes asset builds distinct or when to choose it over others.

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