betadrop_list_expired_builds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say 'Shows expiry reason and details,' which reveals part of the output behavior. However, it omits any mention of authentication needs, read-only guarantees, or a more precise return shape, leaving the agent with some uncertainty for a tool that has no output schema.

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 with three short sentences, each adding information: the action, the shortcut relationship, and the output details. The only minor issue is that the first sentence nearly restates the tool name, making it somewhat redundant, but overall it is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 that there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'expiry reason and details,' but it does not define the response structure beyond vague 'details.' The schema covers pagination and platform filtering, and the tool is a simple list, so the description is adequate but not rich enough to be fully complete without an output schema.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters (page, perPage, platform) with complete descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all expired builds on BetaDrop.' It also clarifies the relationship to the general listing tool by calling it a 'shortcut for listing builds with status 'expired'', which distinguishes it from siblings like betadrop_list_builds. The mention of 'Shows expiry reason and details' provides additional clarity about the output focus.

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 clear context: this is a shortcut for a specific status filter, so an agent can infer it should be used when expired builds are needed. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (betadrop_list_builds) or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of full exclusion guidance.

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