list_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a read (list) and scopes it to a test plan, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose details such as whether closed builds are included, pagination behavior, or the return format, leaving some ambiguity.

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, direct sentence with no redundancy. The parenthetical API reference adds useful context without length. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly defines the tool's purpose and scope. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any return value structure or edge cases (e.g., empty list, invalid testPlanId), but given the simplicity, it remains adequate.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name 'testPlanId' with a type, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The description clarifies that the parameter refers to the test plan whose builds are listed, adding some semantic context. However, it does not explain the format or expected values for testPlanId, so compensation is partial.

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 action ('List every build') and the resource ('defined for a test plan'), with a specific and identifiable scope. It also references the underlying API method (tl.getBuildsForTestPlan), which adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_build or close_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 implies usage when you need to retrieve all builds for a given test plan, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no comparison to sibling tools such as list_test_plans or create_build, so the usage context is implicit rather than explicit.

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