get_build_configuration_details

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return envelope (success/error, data structure) but omits information about authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Since it is a read operation, the risk is low, but more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise and well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear formatting, earning its sentences without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, simple output), the description is thorough. It covers the return envelope and provides an example. An output schema exists, so repeating return fields is unnecessary. Could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains both parameters (profile_id and configuration_id) with example UUIDs and includes an example call. This adds value beyond the raw schema, though constraints like format or required patterns are not explicitly stated.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'build configuration', and specifies that it retrieves a single configuration by profile ID and configuration ID. This is specific and sufficiently distinct from sibling tools, even without explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_build_profile_details or get_workflow_detail. There are no use-case scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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