builds__diagnostic_signatures__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint and does not contradict annotations. It provides no extra behavioral context such as pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits beyond what the schema already covers.

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 clear sentence with an inline endpoint reference. No wasted words; every element serves a purpose.

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 listing tool with five well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is sufficient to convey the core action and scope. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the implicit return of diagnostic signatures, and the schema covers filtering and field selection. However, it omits any note about pagination or expected response shape, though this is minor for a list operation.

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%, so all parameters (id, limit, next_url, filter_diagnosticType, fields_diagnosticSignatures) already have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('diagnostic signatures belonging to a build'), matching the endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like diagnostic_signatures__logs__list, which lists logs rather than signatures.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as builds__list or diagnostic_signatures__logs__list. The context is implied by the resource, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

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