builds_get_collection

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, yet it discloses nothing about pagination, default ordering, returned payload shape, or permissions. A bare endpoint string gives the agent no behavioral context for a 35-parameter list operation.

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 single line is pure redundant waste that duplicates the endpoint path in parentheses. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient, front-loaded information.

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 35-parameter collection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits purpose, usage, filtering/sorting behavior, and return expectations, leaving the agent dependent solely on the name and schema.

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 all 35 parameters (sort, limit, include, filters, fields_*) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever; baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 just the HTTP route 'GET /v1/builds (GET /v1/builds)', which merely restates the tool name builds_get_collection in endpoint notation. It does not state a human-readable verb+resource purpose, and it offers no differentiation from siblings like builds_get_instance or builds_update_instance.

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 exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this lists builds rather than fetching one build, 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.