beta_build_localizations__build__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description merely says 'Read' which adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide; it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or return characteristics. Thus the description provides minimal behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 sentence with the endpoint included, containing no redundant words or filler. It front-loads the operation ('Read') and the resource, making it both concise and immediately informative.

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-parameter read operation with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit mention of the return type (the build object), but the tool name and description make it implicit. The endpoint and parameter guidance from schema cover the remaining context, so no major gaps exist.

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, with the parameter 'id' described as 'ID from the matching list call.' The tool description itself adds no parameter detail, but the schema sufficiently explains the parameter's origin and purpose, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Read the build for a beta build localization' with the specific GET endpoint. It specifies the resource (build) and its parent (beta build localization), and the verb 'Read' distinguishes it from modifying operations. The sibling tools like beta_build_localizations__get and builds__get are distinct.

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 implies usage when you have a beta build localization ID and need its associated build, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternative tools. There is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if you need the localization itself).

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