beta_build_localizations__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds the HTTP GET path and specifies it reads one resource, which aligns with annotations. No additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, auth) are provided, but the safety profile is covered.

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 declarative sentence plus the endpoint, with no redundancy. It conveys the essential operation in minimal words.

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 get-by-ID resource with read-only annotations and full parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is adequate. It lacks explicit mention of return format or optional include/fields behavior, but the schema covers those. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the intuitive read operation.

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 100%, with descriptions for id, include, and fields_betaBuildLocalizations that explain purpose and trade-offs (e.g., 'comma-separated list of relationships to include'). The main description adds no parameter semantics beyond schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the action ('Read') and the resource ('one beta build localization') and identifies the access method ('by ID'), distinguishing this get-by-ID operation from sibling list/create/update tools. It also includes the REST endpoint for reference.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving a single beta build localization when its ID is known. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by ID' phrasing implies the appropriate scenario. Sibling tools like beta_build_localizations__list exist for multiple records, though this isn't stated.

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