Project Badge

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return is a badge URL (SVG) and that a 404 info is returned if no buildset exists, complementing the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief summary followed by clear parameter documentation. No extraneous information.

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 the presence of an output schema (which describes return value), annotations, and the description's coverage of purpose, behavior, and parameters, the description is complete and leaves no key questions unanswered.

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 description provides detailed parameter explanations in the Args section (project format, tenant default, optional filters for pipeline and branch) despite 0% schema coverage. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a status badge for a project's latest buildset result, specifying the output format (SVG URL) and embedding use case. It distinguishes from sibling tools as there is no other badge-related tool.

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 explains the tool is used to embed CI status in READMEs and handles the case of no buildset. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or references to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical usage.

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