Buildset Details

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that brief returns compact metadata while brief=False returns builds, events, and timing, and that url can be used instead of uuid+tenant. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a one-line summary, a concise note on the brief flag, and a simple Args list. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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?

Since an output schema exists to describe return values, the description need not explain them. It adequately covers all input parameters, defaults, and the two identifier modes, providing enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand response size trade-offs.

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 compensate. It lists all four parameters (uuid, tenant, url, brief) with clear semantics: uuid and tenant for direct lookup, url as an alternative identifier, and brief with its effect on response detail. This adds meaning far beyond the schema's bare parameter titles.

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 opens with 'Get buildset details — result, pipeline, project, change,' which clearly specifies the action (get) and resource (buildset) and lists key contents. It distinguishes from siblings like list_buildsets by focusing on a single buildset, and from get_build by targeting the buildset level.

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 brief parameter's default and how to get full details with brief=False, which is helpful for response size. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_build or list_buildsets; the usage context is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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