get_build

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds value by naming the fields returned, which is helpful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., unknown or expired build IDs) or authentication requirements.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the field list is tacked on without filler. Every clause 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?

For a simple single-resource getter with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete, and listing returned fields partly compensates for the absent output schema. Only the lack of error/lookup guidance keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the description only restates 'by ID' without adding format, pattern, or lookup-source guidance beyond the schema's pattern and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a single build by ID') and enumerates the salient fields returned (version, processing state, expiration, encryption flag). 'Single build by ID' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_builds, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by ID' signals that a buildId must already be known, presumably from list_builds, but the description never says when to use this versus list_builds or what to do if the ID is unknown. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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