builds__app_encryption_declaration__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description matches this by saying 'Read.' Beyond the endpoint and the build relationship, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as response shape, error cases, or auth requirements, so it does not go beyond what annotations already convey.

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 concise sentence followed by the endpoint, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter GET operation with strong annotations and a fully descriptive schema. The description plus schema is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and no output schema is needed for this straightforward read.

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 one parameter, 'id,' with a clear description ('ID from the matching list call'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds the context that this is a build ID, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema information, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('the app encryption declaration for a build'), and the endpoint path further disambiguates the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'builds__app_encryption_declaration__set' and 'app_encryption_declarations__get' by focusing on the build 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?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for reading a build's encryption declaration, and the schema adds 'ID from the matching list call,' which gives context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., app_encryption_declarations__get) or state any exclusions.

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