list_builds

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the returned fields (name, pass status, size) and ordering. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or the scope of 'latest' (all builds vs. a window), which matters for a list endpoint.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads ordering ('newest first') before enumerating the returned fields. No filler, no repetition of the name.

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 zero-param, low-complexity list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the result fields, which substitutes for the missing schema. Only the absence of pagination/limit behavior keeps it short of 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the empty schema; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter chatter.

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?

States a clear verb+resource (lists builds) and adds scope ('latest', newest-first) plus the fields returned. It implicitly contrasts with the singular read_build, but never names or differentiates itself from siblings like read_build or compare_to_reference.

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?

'Latest ... newest first' hints at the recency-listing use case, so usage is implied. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to read_build for single-build detail.

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