List extra share links of a build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bare 'Read only.' sentence earns nothing. What does add value is the disclosed quota behavior ('plan limit: Pro 3, Team 20 per build') and the explanation of the state field including why a link may take no installs — real behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations. It stops short of saying what happens when the limit is exceeded or whether results are ordered/paginated.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence that front-loads the resource and then the returned fields, followed by a short mode statement. Nothing is redundant; the only cost is that the field enumeration is packed with commas rather than structured, which slightly slows scanning.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and decoding the state values, plus the plan-limit constraint. For a one-parameter read tool with annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient; only pagination/ordering and the treatment of the primary install link versus 'extra' links remain unstated.

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% and the single 'build' parameter is already documented as 'Build id or the slug of its install link'. The description adds no additional semantics about that identifier (e.g., where to obtain it, format, or ambiguity handling), so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline 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 names a specific resource ('the extra share links of one build') and enumerates the fields returned (label, URL, install count, password flag, stop date, install cap, state), which makes the tool's output scope unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling write tools add_build_link/remove_build_link, but the 'extra share links' framing plus the read-only nature separates it adequately.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The agent must infer from context that this is the inspection counterpart to add_build_link/remove_build_link and that a build id or install-link slug is required. The phrase 'one build' hints at scoping but gives no routing guidance.

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