build_beta_details_build_get_to_one_relationship

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. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, that it returns only relationship linkage (type/id) rather than the build object itself, or anything about auth or error behavior. 'GET' is the only hint, and it is already implied by the tool 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 short by omission rather than by editing: the identical path is printed twice, so the parenthetical adds zero information. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not crispness.

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 needed to explain what the relationship endpoint returns and how it differs from the 'related' variant. It provides none of that, so an agent cannot call it confidently or correctly choose it over its sibling.

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% and there is a single required 'id' parameter, so the schema already fully documents the input; baseline 3 applies. The description only echoes the id back as a path placeholder and adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 just the HTTP verb plus the URL path duplicated in parentheses: 'GET /v1/buildBetaDetails/{id}/relationships/build'. It restates what the tool name already encodes ('..._build_get_to_one_relationship') without saying in domain terms that this fetches the linkage record pointing to a build for a beta detail. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling build_beta_details_build_get_to_one_related.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical 'related' sibling that returns the full build resource instead of the relationship linkage. The agent is left to infer selection purely from tool naming.

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