Get install links

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation establishes the safety profile, and the description does not contradict it. It adds the mild constraint that the build must already exist, but says nothing about whether links expire, whether they require authentication to redeem, or what the QR code encodes.

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 telegraphic phrase with zero waste, front-loading the output (install URLs, QR code) ahead of the input constraint. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, which makes it slightly terse even for a simple tool.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and a simple read annotation, the definition is nearly adequate but leaves the return shape (which platforms, what URL formats, whether the QR image is inline) entirely unspecified. An agent can call it, but cannot anticipate the response.

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%, so the schema documents only types and a UUID pattern. The description partially compensates by naming the QR code, mapping loosely to the qr boolean parameter, but leaves buildId's provenance and the qr default (true) unexplained.

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 resource (install URLs and a QR code) tied to a specific qualifier (an existing build id), so an agent knows it retrieves install artifacts for a given build. It does not, however, contrast itself with near siblings like buildtree_list_builds or buildtree_upload, so differentiation depends on inference.

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?

"for an existing build id" is the only hint that this tool presumes a prior build. There is no guidance on when to reach for it versus list_builds, no mention of where the build id comes from, and no stated alternatives.

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