apps_build_uploads_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: no pagination behavior, no authentication requirements, no rate limits, no indication of what is returned. It is a bare URL.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence duplicates itself verbatim ('GET /v1/apps/{id}/buildUploads' twice), adding zero information and failing to front-load any actual purpose or behavior.

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 11-parameter list endpoint with no annotations and no output schema demands a description explaining listing semantics, filtering, and pagination. The description supplies none of this, leaving an agent unable to call the tool correctly beyond reading the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% across all 11 parameters, so the schema itself documents sort, limit, include, and the filter/fields params. The description adds no additional meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 is only the raw endpoint path repeated twice, which restates the tool name rather than explaining it. An agent can infer it lists build uploads for a given app id, but nothing names the resource in plain language or differentiates it from sibling tools like apps_build_uploads_get_to_many_relationship or build_uploads_get_instance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this endpoint versus the numerous sibling build-upload and app-relationship tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are mentioned.

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