builds__individual_testers__list

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 safety profile is clear. The description adds the endpoint information but provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default limit, or relationship to beta groups. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that is direct and informative, with the endpoint path as a helpful reference. No wasted words; every part adds value. Fits the conciseness ideal.

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-only list operation with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description along with structured data is nearly complete. It lacks explicit pagination details beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, but the 'next_url' parameter hints at pagination. No output schema, but return value for a list is reasonably inferred. Slight gap in not explaining relationship to beta groups, but not critical.

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 coverage is 100% for the 3 parameters. The description mentions the build ID as 'ID from the matching list call' in the schema, which adds a bit of context, but the description itself does not elaborate beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 resource 'individual testers belonging to a build', with the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like builds__individual_testers__add/remove and builds__beta_groups__list, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies this is the read operation for individual testers on a build, and the endpoint path clarifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like builds__beta_groups__list or when not to use it. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternative guidance is given.

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