build_beta_details__build__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the endpoint, which is already implied by the tool name, and provides no additional behavioral context such as include behavior or response characteristics.

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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence plus the endpoint. Every word earns its place, and the endpoint provides precise routing information without 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?

For a simple read operation with annotations and a fully self-describing schema, this description is sufficient. The endpoint clarifies the exact resource, and the tool's role is understandable in the context of sibling tools, though a note about the 'include' parameter's purpose would have made it complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'id' and 'include' described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the burden, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Read the build') and the resource ('for a build beta detail'), and the endpoint path makes the exact scope unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like builds__build_beta_detail__get, which performs the inverse relationship.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling builds__build_beta_detail__get is the inverse relationship, but the description does not mention it or any other context for choosing this endpoint.

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