Get build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds a small behavioral hint by naming the return content ('status and result'), but does not disclose error handling, not-found behavior, or access requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information: action, scope, and return content.

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 low-complexity read-only fetch with two self-descriptive parameters and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the action, the scope, and key return fields. It would be more complete with an explicit pointer to list_builds for multi-build retrieval, but this is not a blocking gap.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'project' or 'buildId' parameters. While the names are suggestive, the description does not specify the format of 'project' or the relationship between buildId and build/run, leaving the description unable to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('a single build/run'), and the data of interest ('status and result'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_builds, which would return multiple builds.

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?

The description provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over list_builds or other siblings. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative scenarios.

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