ci_build_runs_actions_get_to_many_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the implicit read-only nature of 'GET'. Pagination behavior, auth requirements, and the shape/size of the returned action list are all unstated.

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 single sentence is pure redundancy: the same path is printed twice with the second copy merely wrapped in parentheses. There is no front-loaded natural-language statement of purpose, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 list-returning relationship endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what the returned actions represent and how this differs from the *_related sibling. Neither is provided, leaving the agent unable to confidently choose or interpret this call.

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% for both parameters ('id' and 'limit'), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or usage detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 just the raw HTTP path 'GET /v1/ciBuildRuns/{id}/relationships/actions' repeated verbatim in parentheses. It restates the tool name rather than explaining what a build run's 'actions' are or what the call returns. It also fails to distinguish this 'relationship' variant from the sibling ci_build_runs_actions_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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. The many sibling *_get_to_many_relationship vs *_get_to_many_related tools make this omission especially costly, since nothing tells the agent which of the near-identical variants to pick.

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