ci_build_runs_actions_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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP method. It does not state pagination behavior (despite a 'limit' param), whether results are read-only, what relationships can be included, or what the response contains.

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 description is short but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: it wastes its one line duplicating the same endpoint string twice instead of front-loading any meaningful explanation of purpose or usage.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides nothing an agent needs to call it correctly, understand its relationship to siblings, or interpret the returned collection. It is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 five parameters (id, limit, include, fields_ciBuildRuns, fields_ciBuildActions) documented in the schema itself. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no further parameter meaning.

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 a bare restatement of the HTTP endpoint ('GET /v1/ciBuildRuns/{id}/actions') duplicated in parentheses. It conveys a verb and resource path but adds no prose explaining what the tool does, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling ci_build_runs_actions_get_to_many_relationship.

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 on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. ci_build_runs_actions_get_to_many_relationship, ci_build_actions_get_instance) it should be preferred over. 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.