builds__build_beta_detail__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read' adds little. It only appends the endpoint path but discloses no additional behaviors (e.g., what data is returned, relationship inclusion effects, or error conditions). This goes not beyond the safety profile already covered by 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, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 GET with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. The resource name and endpoint clearly indicate what is being fetched, and the schema covers parameters. However, without an output schema, it does not explicitly state what fields the beta detail contains or any error scenarios, leaving a minor gap.

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%, and the schema provides thorough explanations for both parameters, including the relationship inclusion trade-off in 'include'. The description itself adds no parameter context, but the schema fully carries the semantic load, 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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'the build beta detail for a build,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like builds__get or build_beta_details__get. The endpoint path in brackets reinforces the resource 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as build_beta_details__get or builds__get. The only hint is the schema note for 'id' about getting it from a list call, but the description itself lacks any usage context or exclusions.

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