get_build_update

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 only says 'View,' implying a read operation, but does not mention whether authentication is required, whether VCS data could be absent, or any other behavioral caveats. Some context is implied by the output schema, but the description itself is minimal.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence. The Args block is brief and directly explains the only parameter without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core function and parameter meaning. It lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral caveats, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema reduce the need for extensive additional context.

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. It does identify the parameter as 'The CDash build ID,' adding domain meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Build Id' title. However, it provides no additional detail about expected format, range, or source, so the compensation is only partial.

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 ('View') and resource ('source code changes (VCS commits) associated with a build'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_build_details, get_build_tests, or get_build_errors, which cover different aspects of a build.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from sibling tool names rather than providing explicit guidance.

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