builds_build_beta_detail_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, and it discharges almost none of it. The 'GET' verb implies a read-only fetch, which is the only behavioral signal present; nothing is said about authentication scope, pagination, caching, or what the returned beta detail actually contains.

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 roughly half of it is a redundant restatement of the same path in parentheses. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing — no sentence earns its place because there is effectively only one sentence stated twice.

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?

A 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain the return payload and the include/fields mechanics. Instead it supplies only the endpoint path, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone.

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 id, include, fields_builds, and fields_buildBetaDetails. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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 string 'GET /v1/builds/{id}/buildBetaDetail', repeated verbatim inside parentheses. It technically names a verb and resource, but the duplication adds nothing and there is no plain-language statement of what a 'buildBetaDetail' is or why an agent would fetch it. This is close to tautology — the name already encodes the same path.

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, no prerequisites, and no differentiation from the near-identical sibling 'builds_build_beta_detail_get_to_one_relationship'. The agent gets no signal about which of the two relationship variants to pick or when this endpoint is the right call versus builds_get_instance.

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