List access codes of a build or extra link

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and closed-world scope, but the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: codes are never displayed again after creation, results are capped at 25 per page, and each code carries one of three states. Pagination and the irreversibility of code display are exactly the traits an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations.

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?

It is compact and front-loaded, placing the target and return fields first and the constraints (codes not re-shown, page size, team scope, read only) after. The colon-led list and trailing fragments ('Team. Read only.') are terse to the point of being slightly telegraphic, but nothing is padded.

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, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the state enum values, plus pagination limits and the irreversible display rule. The only real gap is the absence of a stated page/cursor mechanism for retrieving pages beyond the first 25, which an agent would need for large builds.

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% and the description's statement that target is a build id, build slug, or extra link slug restates the schema description almost verbatim. The additional meaningful detail (25 per page) relates to result paging rather than to the parameter itself, so this lands at the baseline for fully documented single-parameter schemas.

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 and resource: listing per-tester access codes for either a build's own page or one extra link. It also enumerates the returned fields (label, devices used of allowed count, state, creation time), which makes the tool's output scope concrete. It does not name create_access_code or revoke_access_code as the mutating counterparts, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing ('read only', listing per-tester codes of a build page or extra link), and the target argument wording tells the agent which two target kinds are valid. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance toward create_access_code, revoke_access_code, or a hypothetical single-code fetch, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from sibling names.

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