get_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'build result' includes, whether this operation is read-only, how errors are surfaced, or how it differs from checking build status. The description mostly restates the tool name's obvious meaning.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the verb and object immediately. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it sacrifices behavioral and comparative detail.

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?

The tool is simple and has no required parameters, so the schema covers invocation adequately. However, with no output schema and no explanation of what 'build result' contains, an agent may still be unsure what it will receive or how this differs from similar sibling tools.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'version', including its type, default, and lower bound. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adding little parameter detail is acceptable; the phrase 'specified version' aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning.

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 states a specific action ('Return') on a specific resource ('build result') for a specified version. It is reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_build_status, which could plausibly return similar information.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_build_status or await_build. The description implies a retrieval purpose by saying 'Return the build result', but it provides no exclusions, conditions, or sibling comparisons.

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