apps_builds_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 behavioral burden. The GET path minimally implies a read operation, but the description does not explain pagination behavior, response shape, permissions, or any other operational traits.

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 endpoint is duplicated in parentheses, which is pure redundancy and adds no value. The description is under-specified rather than meaningfully concise.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about the collection being returned and pagination constraints. For a three-parameter list endpoint, the single endpoint path is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents id, limit, and fields_builds. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the endpoint path, but the baseline is 3 when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 only restates the endpoint path, including a duplicated GET /v1/apps/{id}/builds parenthetical. It implies the resource is builds under an app, but it is essentially tautological with the tool name and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like apps_builds_get_to_many_relationship.

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 about when to use this tool versus the relationship variant or the general builds collection endpoint. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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