ci_build_runs_builds_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 burden, yet it discloses nothing: no pagination limits, no sorting defaults, no authentication requirements, no indication of what the returned collection contains or how large it can be.

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 text is a redundant duplication of the same route string twice, adding no informational value. This is under-specification rather than true 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 36-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It should explain that it returns the collection of builds related to a CI build run and how to shape the response via include/fields/limit, none of which is present.

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 all 36 parameters (sort, limit, include, filters, and sparse fieldsets) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline expectation 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 only the HTTP route 'GET /v1/ciBuildRuns/{id}/builds' repeated verbatim in parentheses. It restates the tool name and implies a list of builds under a CI build run, but adds no explanation of the resource or the operation beyond what the tool name already encodes.

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 endpoint versus siblings like ci_build_runs_get_instance or ci_build_runs_actions_get_to_many_related. The agent must infer everything from the path and tool name.

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