builds_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the parameter requirement, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how pagination/sorting works, or any potential side effects or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a list tool.

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 with no unnecessary words. The bracketed prefix and the key requirement are front-loaded, making it easy to parse. It is concise, though perhaps too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not explain the output (though an output schema exists), the meaning of filters/include, or when to use this tool relative to the sibling tools. This leaves important context missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that either product_id or workflow_id is required, but it does not explain the meaning or interplay of sort, limit, filters, or include. These parameters remain largely undefined, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('List') and resource ('builds'), and scopes the action with 'for a product or workflow'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like builds_get (single build) and builds_start (create build).

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?

It states a necessary condition: 'Requires either product_id or workflow_id.' This gives clear invocation context but does not compare with alternatives such as builds_get or artifacts_list. It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings.

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