apps_builds_get_to_many_relationship

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, and it discharges none of it. It does not say that JSON:API relationship endpoints return linkage objects (type/id pairs) rather than full build attributes, does not mention pagination despite the 'limit' parameter, and gives no auth or rate-limit context. The only implicit information, that this is a read, is already encoded in the HTTP verb in the name.

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 length is not the same as conciseness here: the single sentence duplicates the identical path string parenthetically and conveys no information at all. Every character is redundant with the tool name and the following schema, so nothing earns its place.

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, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is completely inadequate for a tool that sits among dozens of nearly indistinguishable '*_get_to_many_relationship' endpoints. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it receives build IDs or build objects, how results are paged, or why it should prefer this over apps_builds_get_to_many_related.

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%: 'id' is documented as 'the id of the requested resource' and 'limit' as 'maximum resources per page'. With the schema doing all the work, the baseline of 3 applies; the description contributes zero additional meaning about parameter format or interaction.

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 nothing more than the raw HTTP path, duplicated verbatim in parentheses: 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/builds (GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/builds)'. An agent can infer 'fetch the builds relationship for an app' from the path, but the text adds no verb-plus-resource statement of its own and never distinguishes this relationship endpoint from the near-identical sibling apps_builds_get_to_many_related. This is effectively a restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation of purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance whatsoever: no prerequisites, no mention of pagination behavior, and no signal about when to choose this relationship endpoint over apps_builds_get_to_many_related (which returns full build resources) or apps_build_uploads_get_to_many_relationship. Nothing is implied beyond the fact that it is a GET.

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