Build Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what specific details are returned (log URL, nodeset, artifacts, etc.) and the effect of the 'brief' flag, providing some value beyond annotations. No contradiction is present.

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, with a clear one-line purpose then a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value—no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the main 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 tool is a simple read-only getter with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all essentials: what it returns, all parameter semantics, and the brief option. It does not need to explain return format because the output schema exists.

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 fully explain parameters. It does so effectively: uuid explains full or prefix from list_builds, tenant notes default from env, url explains alternative to uuid+tenant, and brief specifies the compact response fields. Each parameter's meaning and usage is clarified.

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 build details and lists specific items (log URL, nodeset, artifacts, timing, error detail). It distinguishes from siblings like list_builds (which lists builds) and get_build_failures (specifically failures). The verb 'Get' and resource 'build' are specific.

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 provides some usage context by explaining that uuid comes from list_builds and that url is an alternative to uuid+tenant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_build_log or get_build_failures. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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