get_build_test_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the report includes passing cases and can be very large, and the build number defaults to the last build. However it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or rate limits, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 size caveat and sibling pointer are front-loaded before the args, which is the right ordering. The 'Returns:' line restates what the output schema already provides, a small redundancy, but the rest is tight.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns, the size warning, the failure alternative, and the default build behavior. Only permission/behavioral edge cases are unaddressed.

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, and it does: fullname is 'the fullname of the job' and number is 'the number of the build, if None, get the last build'. The default-when-omitted behavior is especially valuable since the schema only shows default null without explanation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the test report of a specific build) and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling get_build_test_failures. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus the failures-only alternative without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_build_test_failures 'to see what failed', which is a concrete when-to-use-this-other-tool rule. It doesn't spell out broader exclusions (e.g. when you only want summary counts), so it falls just short of a full 5.

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