Get Node.js build details

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

Even with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the four possible states, polling semantics, the 404 case for a UUID that does not belong to this website, and the fact that failed-build cause analysis is intentionally deferred to other tools.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: result summary, polling/failure routing, and 404 behavior. Essential information is front-loaded with no filler.

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 read-only single-build detail call with no output schema, the description covers return contents (state, options, timestamps), state values, polling semantics, failure next-steps, and the 404 condition. No critical invocation decision is left unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only the contextual hints that domain/username identify 'this website' and that uuid selects the build; it does not clarify the unhelpful 'username parameter' schema text or provide parameter formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb ('Returns one build by UUID') and specifies the resource and result fields: state, options, and timestamps. It clearly differentiates this single-build detail endpoint from sibling log/analysis tools by naming them later in the description.

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 explicitly says to poll while a build is pending or running, and on failure to switch to 'Get NodeJS build logs' and 'Analyse failed Node.js build' for the cause. This is direct when-to-use and alternatives guidance, not just implied context.

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