builds_build_beta_detail_get_to_one_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not state the operation is a read, that it requires authentication, what it returns, or how it behaves on a missing relationship.

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 the only content is the raw path repeated twice, so it is redundant rather than informative. There is no front-loaded purpose or useful detail.

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 relationship GET with no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the returned relationship and any prerequisites, and it offers nothing. An agent cannot determine the response shape or constraints from this definition.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter documented as 'the id of the requested resource', so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the id beyond the path placeholder.

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 merely restates the HTTP path and duplicates it verbatim in parentheses; it never states in plain language what the tool does. An agent can infer it retrieves the 'buildBetaDetail' relationship for a build from the path segments, but the description itself is a tautology.

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, or alternative is given. Nothing distinguishes this relationship getter from the many siblings such as builds_build_beta_detail_get_to_one_related or build_beta_details_get_instance.

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