builds_perf_power_metrics_get_to_many_related

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: not that it is a read-only GET, not whether results are paginated, not how the filter parameters interact, not what happens with an unknown build id. The parenthetical duplication of the path adds no behavioral information.

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 mostly waste: the same path is printed twice, once inside parentheses, leaving no room for the information an agent actually needs. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined 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 four-parameter GET relationship endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state what is returned and how filters scope the result set. It provides neither, so an agent cannot judge result shape or filtering behavior from the 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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (id, filter_platform, filter_deviceType, filter_metricType) documented in the schema including the enum values for platform and metricType, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond that, which lands at the baseline of 3 for a fully-covered schema.

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 essentially the tool name and HTTP path repeated verbatim, so it largely restates the identifier rather than describing the operation in agent-readable terms. The path does hint that it fetches performance/power metrics for a build, which is marginally more informative than a pure tautology, but it is not a specific verb+resource statement and does not distinguish it from the sibling apps_perf_power_metrics_get_to_many_related.

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 at all: no indication of when to prefer this over apps_perf_power_metrics_get_to_many_related, builds_beta_build_usages_get_metrics, or builds_performance-style siblings, and no prerequisites mentioned. The agent is left to infer everything from the path string.

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