build_beta_details_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no indication that this is a read-only GET, no auth/scoping requirements, no notes on include/field selection behavior or pagination. The bare endpoint string adds zero behavioral context.

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 length is the result of under-specification rather than economy; the one 'sentence' is a verbatim duplication of the tool name with zero informational value, so nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said.

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 four parameters, the description is completely inadequate — it omits purpose, usage, behavior, and return-shape context, leaving the agent with only an HTTP path.

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 all four parameters (id, include, fields_builds, fields_buildBetaDetails) with descriptions. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 applies; the description adds nothing beyond the schema but does not need to.

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 the endpoint string 'GET /v1/buildBetaDetails/{id}' repeated twice, which merely restates the tool name rather than explaining what the operation retrieves. An agent can infer it fetches a build beta detail by id, but no resource meaning, scope, or distinction from siblings like build_beta_details_get_collection or builds_build_beta_detail_get_to_one_related is provided.

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 tool versus the many sibling get/build_beta_detail tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of required id provenance. The duplicated endpoint string gives no usage context whatsoever.

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