builds_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of indicating the operation is a safe read ('Get'). It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, prerequisites, or rate limits. The read-only nature is clear from the verb, but no further context is added.

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, front-loaded with the category label '[XcodeCloud/Builds]' and immediately states the action. It contains no filler and is highly efficient for the information it conveys.

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-by-id tool, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. The 'include' parameter is unexplained, and there is no mention of how to obtain a valid build_id (e.g., via builds_list). While an output schema exists to detail return values, the missing parameter semantics and usage context keep it from being fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It indirectly references build_id via 'specific build' but says nothing about the 'include' parameter or the format of build_id. The schema only provides titles, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond what is already in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific build.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like builds_list (listing builds) and builds_start (starting builds). The scope ('specific build') is explicit.

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 usage when you have a build_id and need details for that single build. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like builds_list for discovering build IDs. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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