builds_app_encryption_declaration_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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about authentication, permissions, rate limits, or response shape. The only behavioral hint is the implicit read-only nature of an HTTP GET, which is not stated explicitly.

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 and front-loaded, but the single sentence is a verbatim duplication of the tool name and path, so it does not earn its place. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 read-only relationship fetch the complexity is low and the input schema is complete, but with no annotations and no output schema the description still leaves an agent without confirmation of what the call returns or any operational caveats.

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%: both 'id' and 'fields_appEncryptionDeclarations' are fully documented in the schema with their enum values. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies when 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 a raw endpoint echo, 'GET /v1/builds/{id}/appEncryptionDeclaration', which merely restates the tool name in URL form rather than explaining in human terms what is fetched. It technically conveys a verb and resource, but an agent learns nothing beyond what the name already encodes.

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 the sibling builds_app_encryption_declaration_get_to_one_relationship or update variant, and no conditions under which this relationship fetch is appropriate.

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