Search Buildsets

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, notably the performance trade-off for 'include_builds: Fetch full details per buildset (slower, best with limit <= 5)', which is critical for effective use. No contradictions found.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an 'Args' block with one-line explanations for each parameter. It is appropriately sized for 14 parameters, with no redundant or filler content. Every line earns its place.

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 14 parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the description covers all parameters meaningfully. It also explains the buildsets concept and includes a performance caveat for include_builds. Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It does so excellently: every parameter (tenant, project, pipeline, change, branch, ref, result, time filters, limit, skip, include_builds) gets a concise explanation. It also includes constraints and defaults, such as 'limit: Max results, 1-100 (default 20)', which are not in the schema.

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 'Search buildsets' and immediately defines buildsets as 'groups of builds triggered by a single event', which clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_builds or get_buildset. The verb 'Search' and resource 'buildsets' 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 clear context for when to use the tool by explaining it searches buildsets with various filters, and it defines what a buildset is. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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