builds_diagnostic_signatures_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-only affirmation, no pagination behavior, no auth/permission requirements, no indication of what a diagnostic signature record contains. The parenthetical duplication adds no information at all.

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 not efficient: the same path string appears twice with no added value, and there is no front-loaded statement of purpose. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 nested list endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state that it returns diagnostic signatures for a build and note the paging/filtering behavior. As written, nothing beyond the raw route is conveyed, leaving the safety and filtering profile undocumented.

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 all four parameters (id, limit, filter_diagnosticType, fields_diagnosticSignatures) are documented in the schema with enums and meanings, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, but the schema itself does the heavy lifting adequately.

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 tool name as a raw HTTP path ("GET /v1/builds/{id}/diagnosticSignatures") and duplicates it verbatim in parentheses. It never explains what a diagnostic signature actually is or why an agent would want them, so it is effectively a tautology against 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 guidance, no conditions, no alternatives referenced. Notably, the sibling list contains both builds_diagnostic_signatures_get_to_many_relationship and diagnostic_signatures_logs_get_to_many_related, and the description does nothing to route between them.

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