List builds

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the 'most recent first' ordering and 'recent' scoping, but does not go beyond that with details like pagination, limits, or response structure.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the ordering detail. Every word contributes useful information.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, read-only annotations, and absence of an output schema, this description is mostly sufficient. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit detail about what 'recent' means and how 'top' shapes the result set, but the schema partially covers 'top'.

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 50%, so the description partially compensates by clarifying that the project scope is via a project. It does not explicitly explain that 'top' controls the number of results, though 'recent' and 'most recent first' hint at it.

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 names a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('recent builds/runs'), and a scope ('in a project'), plus the ordering ('most recent first'). This makes it easy to distinguish from single-item tools like get_build and from pipeline-definition tools like list_pipelines.

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?

It conveys a clear context: use this when you need recent build/run history for a project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended situation is obvious from the phrasing.

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