builds_app_get_to_one_relationship

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this returns relationship linkage (type/id) rather than the full app resource, not whether auth is required, not what the response contains. A raw path string conveys no behavioral traits.

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 brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The parenthetical repeats the identical path, which is pure waste rather than an earned 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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a description that never explains what a 'get to one relationship' returns versus the '_related' sibling. For an agent trying to fetch a build's app linkage in a very large sibling namespace, the most important information is missing entirely.

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 the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'the id of the requested resource', so the schema already does the work. Per the high-coverage baseline, 3 is appropriate; the description 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 a verbatim restatement of the endpoint path ('GET /v1/builds/{id}/relationships/app'), duplicated in parentheses. It reveals the HTTP verb and resource path but never states in plain language that it retrieves the app linkage for a build, nor distinguishes the 'relationship' variant from the sibling 'builds_app_get_to_one_related'. This is essentially a tautology of the name.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative is given. The sibling set contains a near-identical tool (builds_app_get_to_one_related) and the description offers zero guidance on which to pick or in what situation.

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