list_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists 'recent builds' and includes 'status and results', but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or whether it operates across all projects or a specific one. It also doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, though that is implied by the verb 'List'. It provides minimal value beyond the obvious.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or repetition. It is ideally sized for quick comprehension.

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, leaving the description as the primary context source. The description gives a high-level overview but omits details like default behavior, return format, and how filters combine. For a relatively simple list tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive, especially without an output schema to explain the result structure.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions 'status and results', which loosely aligns with statusFilter and resultFilter, but it doesn't clarify parameter usage or relationships. The 'recent' qualifier slightly hints at the 'top' parameter but not meaningfully.

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 a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('recent builds') and includes the key output fields ('status and results'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_build (single build) and list_build_definitions (build definitions), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The word 'recent' adds scope but could be more precise.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_build or list_build_definitions. There is no mention of when not to use it or what distinguishes it from other list tools. The intended use is only implied by the name and description, not explicitly stated.

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