beta_testers__builds__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint path but no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, response shape), which is acceptable given the annotations.

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 plus an endpoint reference. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the simple list operation, rich schema (all params described), and helpful annotations, the description is sufficient. It defines the scope clearly, though it does not explicitly mention that only builds are returned or the pagination mechanics, which are implied by the schema.

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?

All parameters (id, limit, next_url, fields_builds) are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the builds belonging to a beta tester'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like builds__list (all builds) and beta_testers__apps__list (apps for a tester). The endpoint path reinforces the scope.

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 clarifies the usage context (when you have a beta tester ID and need their builds), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The inverse relationship with builds__individual_testers__list is not called out, but the direction is clear from the wording.

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