builds_beta_build_localizations_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-only confirmation, no pagination behavior, no auth/permission requirements, no note on what the related resources contain. Repeating the URL adds no 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 and front-loaded, but half of its content is an exact duplicate of the other half (the parenthetical repeats the same route). Brevity is fine; the duplicated segment earns nothing.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should at least confirm read-only semantics and pagination via the limit parameter. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent with only the schema and an opaque route string.

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 id, limit, and the fields selector are all documented in the schema itself; per the calibration rule this yields a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it is not required 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 only restates the HTTP route 'GET /v1/builds/{id}/betaBuildLocalizations' and then repeats it verbatim in parentheses. It conveys a fetch of build-related beta build localizations, but that is pure tautology of the tool name rather than an explanation of purpose, and it gives no differentiation from siblings like builds_beta_build_localizations_get_to_many_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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance of any kind. With hundreds of near-identical get_to_many_related siblings, the agent is left to infer routing entirely from the name.

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