ci_build_actions_get_instance

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements, no pagination, no error or 404 behavior, no note on what the resource contains. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'GET' is conveyed, which is the bare minimum signal available from the route itself.

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 not concise: it redundantly repeats the identical route twice in parentheses with zero additional information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading, so it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' standard.

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 4-parameter tool with relationship inclusion (buildRun) and sparse fieldset options, no output schema, and no annotations. The description should at least name the resource and note the include/fields capabilities, but it explains none of them, leaving the agent without guidance on the tool's richer API behavior.

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 the schema already documents id, include, and both fields_* sparsity filters, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description adds no meaning at all—it never mentions relationship inclusion or field selection—so it neither helps nor harms beyond the structured data.

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 merely restates the HTTP route, duplicated verbatim: "GET /v1/ciBuildActions/{id} (GET /v1/ciBuildActions/{id})". It conveys a read of a single resource only because 'GET' and '{id}' happen to be present; it does not explain what a CI build action is or what distinguishes it from siblings like ci_build_actions_build_run_get_to_one_relationship. This is effectively tautological with the tool 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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description gives no hint about when an agent should fetch a build action instance versus a build run or a related resource. Nothing beyond the route template is provided.

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