List Builds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only that filtering exists and that project defaults to the configured default project — useful but thin; it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or the default page size of 10 beyond what the schema states.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves gaps rather than being optimally informative.

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?

With no output schema and no required parameters, the description is minimally adequate given 100% schema coverage. However, it omits anything about return shape, pagination, total counts, or ordering, which an agent listing builds would benefit from knowing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail, including default project and per_page limits. The description names two filters (build target, status) that are already fully specified in the schema, adding little beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('List builds') and scopes it to a project, plus names the filterable dimensions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_build_targets or get_build, so it falls short of 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?

It states what can be filtered but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_build for a single build or list_build_targets for target metadata. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and filter mention.

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