Build Details

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (log URL, nodeset, artifacts, timing, error detail) but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 clear and efficient, using a concise list format for parameter details. It could be slightly more streamlined, but overall it is well-structured and front-loads the purpose.

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, the description appropriately focuses on parameters and purpose. It is complete enough for a read-only tool, though it could mention that results are comprehensive or refer to the output schema.

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 fully explains each parameter: uuid (full or prefix from list_builds), tenant (default if empty), url (alternative to uuid+tenant). This adds critical meaning absent from the raw 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'full build details' and lists specific attributes (log URL, nodeset, artifacts, timing, error detail), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on narrower aspects like logs or failures.

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 use for comprehensive build info but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browse_build_logs' or 'get_build_failures', which are present in the sibling list.

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