get_build

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the 'Touches: reads only' line is mostly redundant. However, the Bounds line adds real behavioral facts the annotations cannot convey: a three-request cost against Odoo.sh and the not-found behavior for older builds. That is meaningful edge-case disclosure.

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?

Tight and front-loaded, with the Returns/Touches/Bounds labels making it scannable. The labeled fragments are slightly telegraphic, but every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value line is optional rather than necessary. The description still covers the read-only nature, the request cost, and the default-build behavior, leaving only parameter identifier formats unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the load, and it does explain build_id (build number, defaults to latest). Project and branch are only implied by the phrase 'of a branch of a project' with no format or identifier guidance, so a third of the parameter meaning is still missing.

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 ('Read one build of a branch of a project') and immediately scopes the cardinality to a single build, which implicitly separates it from list_builds. It does not name list_builds or wait_for_build explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 gives the key conditional: pass a build number or get the latest when none is provided. That is genuine usage guidance for the optional build_id, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_builds or wait_for_build, nor any prerequisites.

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