list_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the scope ('in a namespace') but does not mention behavior such as whether it returns all namespaces if not specified, how cluster_alias affects execution, or any filtering limitations. The description is too terse to be transparent about the tool's behavior.

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?

A single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the action and scope. There is no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with an output schema available, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about the optional parameters (especially cluster_alias) and does not differentiate this tool from the many similar list tools in the sibling set. It is minimally complete but leaves room for improvement.

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 must compensate. However, the description does not explain the meaning of 'namespace' or 'cluster_alias' beyond the schema's defaults. While 'namespace' is self-explanatory, 'cluster_alias' is not elaborated, leaving the purpose of this parameter unclear.

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 tool's action ('List all'), resource ('OpenShift Builds'), and scope ('in a namespace'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_buildconfigs' and 'get_build' by explicitly naming the resource type.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The intended use case (listing builds in a namespace) is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no mention of when to use this over alternatives or any prerequisites. This aligns with 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.

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