Search Builds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description mentions 'compact build summaries' but does not explain sorting, AND logic for filters, or pagination behavior beyond offset/limit. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond safety.

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 front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then lists parameters with brief, consistent formatting. It is efficient without fluff, though the parameter list is lengthy, which is necessary given the tool's complexity.

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's complexity (15 parameters, no required, output schema exists) and annotations present, the description covers parameters well but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like sorting or filter combination logic. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 provides clear explanations for all 15 parameters (e.g., 'Filter by project name', 'ISO 8601, e.g. ...'), adds default values for limit and skip, and clarifies that tenant uses default if empty. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's title fields.

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 searches builds with filters and returns compact build summaries. The verb 'search' and resource 'builds' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_build, list_buildsets, etc., which are for single build retrieval or different resources.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_build for details, list_buildsets for sets). The description only lists filters without context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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