get_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name ('get' -> 'Get') and adds the vague term 'detailed information'. It does not mention the return format, required permissions, or any other behavioral characteristics, which is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple, single-resource get tool, the description adequately states the main purpose. However, with no output schema and only 2 parameters, it would benefit from listing common fields returned or noting that 'project' is optional. The current level is minimally complete but not rich.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters (buildId and project) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. No further details about parameter relationships or formats are given.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific build', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_builds (list all) and get_build_logs (logs), so an agent can identify its unique purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by 'specific build' — it requires a buildId. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over list_builds or get_build_logs, nor are any alternatives or exclusions mentioned. This is a minimum viable level but lacks proactive direction.

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