builds_pre_release_version_get_to_one_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing. It does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, whether 'fields' filters the payload, or what a missing/ineligible pre-release version yields. An agent learns nothing beyond the URL shape.

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 duplicates the exact same path string already in the first half, so half the text is pure redundancy. It is not bloated, but no sentence earns its place.

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 to-one relationship fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum say it returns the pre-release version associated with a given build. Instead it restates the endpoint, leaving the agent to infer the semantics of the relationship entirely from the tool name.

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% (both 'id' and 'fields_preReleaseVersions' are documented in the schema), so the schema already does the heavy lifting; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, neither reinforcing the 'id' path parameter nor explaining the sparse-fieldset enum, but that gap is not penalized given full schema coverage.

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 literally the HTTP path restated twice ('GET /v1/builds/{id}/preReleaseVersion (GET /v1/builds/{id}/preReleaseVersion)'). It conveys a verb (GET) and a resource (preReleaseVersion related to a build), but no prose explains what the resource is or how it differs from the near-identical sibling 'builds_pre_release_version_get_to_one_relationship'. This is close to a tautological restatement of 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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. builds_pre_release_version_get_to_one_relationship vs builds_get_instance) to prefer. The bare 'GET' verb is the only hint, and that is already encoded in the name, so no usage information is delivered.

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