Buildset Details

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the returned data scope ('all builds, results, events, and timing'), which goes beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with 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: one sentence for high-level purpose followed by a bullet-style listing of arguments. No redundant information, and the most important content is front-loaded.

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 and annotations, the description covers the necessary usage context. It explains how to identify a buildset (via uuid+tenant or url). Minor missing detail: it could mention that at least one of uuid or url should be provided, but this is implied.

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 compensate. It explains each parameter: uuid (Buildset UUID), tenant (Tenant name with default), url (alternative to uuid+tenant). This provides basic semantics, though it could be more detailed (e.g., format constraints).

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('buildset'), and enumerates the details included ('all builds, results, events, and timing'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_build' (single build) and 'list_buildsets' (list of buildsets).

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 optional parameters and their alternatives (uuid+tenant vs url), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. Implied context exists but exclusions or alternatives are not stated.

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