build_uploads__build_upload_files__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, appropriately signaling a safe, non-mutating read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior or response size, but the schema's pagination parameters (limit, next_url) cover that. The description does not contradict 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 a reference to the endpoint. It is concise, front-loaded with the action 'List', and contains no filler or redundant explanation. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 list tool with good annotations and complete schema descriptions, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and usage. It doesn't explain return values, but the absence of an output schema is offset by the self-explanatory name and endpoint. The tool is straightforward, so this level of detail is adequate.

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% parameter description coverage, including details for 'id' ('ID from the matching list call'), 'limit', 'next_url', and 'fields_buildUploadFiles'. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the endpoint path, which echoes the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'List' and the specific resource 'build upload files', scoped to 'belonging to a build upload'. This unambiguously identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like build_upload_files__get (a single file getter) or build_uploads__get (the parent resource).

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: this is for listing build upload files associated with a given build upload. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope ('belonging to a build upload') makes the intended use obvious. The schema further clarifies that the 'id' parameter is from a matching list call, which supports correct invocation.

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