build_beta_details_build_get_to_one_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers almost nothing: the 'GET' verb weakly signals a read-only single-resource fetch, but there is no mention of authentication, error behavior when the build is absent, or rate limits. For a 20-parameter tool this is a substantial gap.

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 short because it is under-specified rather than because it is efficient; the parenthetical repeats the identical route text with zero added information, so the structure wastes its only sentence.

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 20-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what the endpoint returns and how the include/fields/limit parameters shape the response. None of that is present, leaving the definition wholly inadequate for correct 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% with all 20 parameters documented in the schema (id, include, fields_*, limit_*), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how include, sparse fieldsets, or limits interact, but the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 essentially the tool's route restated verbatim, including a redundant parenthetical duplicate of 'GET /v1/buildBetaDetails/{id}/build'. It only implies the purpose (fetch the build linked to a buildBetaDetail) via HTTP semantics; it never states in plain terms what is retrieved and does not distinguish this from the near-identical sibling build_beta_details_build_get_to_one_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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions for selecting this tool over the *_relationship sibling or builds_get_instance. An agent must infer everything from the route string alone.

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