builds_beta_build_usages_get_metrics

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 auth requirements, no rate limits, no pagination behavior despite the presence of a limit parameter, and no indication of what metrics are returned. The raw path restatement 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?

The text is short but not concise in any useful sense: the endpoint path is duplicated verbatim inside parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than economy of expression. This is under-specification masquerading as brevity.

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 metrics-retrieval endpoint with a required resource ID and a pagination parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs — not even which metrics are exposed. It is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 both 'id' and 'limit'; the baseline for a fully covered schema is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify that 'id' is a build ID or what the limit counts.

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 only the raw endpoint path repeated twice in parentheses, which is a tautological restatement of the tool name. It conveys nothing a caller couldn't derive from the name itself, and does not differentiate this metrics endpoint from the many sibling metrics endpoints (beta_groups_public_link_usages_get_metrics, beta_testers_beta_tester_usages_get_metrics, etc.).

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 alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would call this endpoint rather than fetching the build resource directly.

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