Build Details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description aligns with that by stating 'Get'. It adds valuable behavioral context about return contents, prefix UUID matching, tenant defaulting from env, and URL as an alternative identifier, which is useful beyond the structured fields.

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 tightly written: one front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact args list. Every sentence contributes operational meaning, and there is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema definitions.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return structure, and it sufficiently covers what the tool returns and how to select build identifiers. It stops short of explicitly stating that uuid or url is required (neither is marked required in the schema), but the description's 'alternative to uuid + tenant' implies the agent should provide one.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: uuid accepts full or prefix from list_builds, tenant defaults from environment, and url serves as an alternative to uuid+tenant. This adds clear, actionable meaning that the schema alone does not provide.

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 specific verb + resource ('Get full build details') and enumerates the included fields (log URL, nodeset, artifacts, timing, error detail), making the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby sibling tools like get_build_log or get_build_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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'full build details' and the reference to list_builds for obtaining a UUID. The description gives parameter alternatives but no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role among siblings.

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