List builds

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful behavior (sort order newest-first, filterable by env/branch), but says nothing about pagination despite a limit parameter, nor about result caps or empty-project behavior. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a modest addition.

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 that names the resource first, then ordering, then returned fields, then filtering. It is dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, describing the returned fields is the right move, and the description does so. The main gap is pagination/limit behavior for a list tool, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 50%: project and branch are described in the schema, while env and limit are not. The description partially compensates by framing env and branch as filters, but adds no semantics for limit (page size? truncation?) beyond the schema's default/max. Baseline 3 fits a half-documented schema.

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 (list), resource (builds), and scope (in a project, newest first), and enumerates the returned fields (ids, env, branch, version, open feedback counts). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like buildtree_list_feedback and buildtree_list_projects by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 closing sentence 'Filter by env or branch' implies how to narrow results, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. buildtree_build or buildtree_list_feedback) or on prerequisites like authentication/project existence. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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