builds__beta_app_review_submission__get

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 safe read behavior is known. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as response structure, error cases, or pagination. It is consistent with annotations but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 entire description is one sentence plus the endpoint URL, conveying the tool's purpose and scoping with zero wasted words. The endpoint is a useful, concise addition.

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 full annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It could mention the return object or explicitly contrast with beta_app_review_submissions__get, but given the simplicity and available structured data, it is adequately 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?

The single parameter 'id' is already fully documented in the schema as 'ID from the matching list call' (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning, so the baseline score 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 'Read the beta app review submission for a build' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly scoping it to a build. The endpoint URL further distinguishes it from sibling tools like beta_app_review_submissions__get, which retrieves by submission ID instead.

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 establishes clear usage context: use this tool when you have a build ID and need its beta app review submission. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the 'for a build' scoping makes the intended use unambiguous.

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