beta_build_localizations__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds the HTTP method GET, confirming idempotency, but does not elaborate on pagination behavior, response structure, or any side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the action ('List beta build localizations') and includes the endpoint path. It is concise but lacks structure such as bullet points or additional sections. The sentence earns its place but could be more 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?

The description does not explain what a 'beta build localization' is or what the response contains. With no output schema, the agent has no information about return values. The tool has 5 parameters and many sibling tools, yet the description provides minimal context, leaving significant gaps.

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 schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3.

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 (list) and resource (beta build localizations) with the HTTP method and path. It distinguishes the tool's general listing capability from siblings like `beta_build_localizations__get` but does not explicitly differentiate from `builds__beta_build_localizations__list`, which lists localizations for a specific build. Thus, it's specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `builds__beta_build_localizations__list` for filtered lists. No explicit context, exclusions, or comparisons are given, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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