builds_get_instance

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 beyond the HTTP verb. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication/scopes are required, what happens on an invalid or expired id, or what the response contains. The 'GET' is the only behavioral signal, and it is embedded in a route string.

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 parenthetical literally duplicates the route string with no added information, so the second half earns nothing. More importantly the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient phrasing.

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?

This is a 20-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, which puts maximum disclosure burden on the description. The description supplies only a route template, leaving the agent with no notion of read semantics, sparse-fieldset behavior, relationship inclusion, or response shape.

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 20 parameters (id, include, the various fields_* and limit_* filters) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about them, but per the rubric the high coverage establishes a baseline of 3.

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 the raw HTTP route 'GET /v1/builds/{id}' repeated twice in parentheses. It restates the operation implied by the tool name without explaining what a 'build instance' is or how it differs from siblings like builds_get_collection or builds_update_instance. This is essentially a tautology rather than a purpose statement.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (an id must already exist), when a collection fetch is preferable, or which of the many sibling build tools to pick. The agent is left to infer usage 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.