Get a build

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds substantial context beyond this: it reads once and returns (no streaming), remains readable after the build finishes, and critically requires an account-wide key with a 403 refusal for workspace-scoped keys. This auth requirement is vital behavioral disclosure not in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then contrasts with watch_build, then explains the post-completion use case, then gives the auth requirement. Dense but every sentence earns its place. Slightly long but no waste.

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?

Complete for a single-param read tool. Covers what it returns, when to use it vs. the sibling, behavior on finished builds, and the auth prerequisite. No output schema exists, but the description explains the return sufficiently ('what became of one build, which template, which step').

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 100%, with build_id documented as 'The id build_template returned'. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema baseline, which is appropriate for a single-param tool.

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 (get) and resource (one build), and clarifies scope with 'which template it was for, and which step it is on'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling watch_build ('watch_build is what follows a running one').

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?

Names the alternative watch_build and the condition that selects it (running build vs. reading a finished one). Also clarifies a specific use case: finding out which step failed on an unwatched build.

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