ado_list_builds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, mentioning only optional filters. It does not disclose pagination behavior ('top' parameter is described in schema), default sorting, or response structure, but given annotation coverage, a neutral score is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and optional filters. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no redundant words or verbose explanations. Every word 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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits important context such as what fields are returned in the build list (e.g., build ID, status, queue time), default values for 'top' or 'branch', and required permissions. Despite clear annotations, the description fails to provide a complete picture for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description briefly references two parameters ('definition' and 'branch') but does not add additional meaning or format details (e.g., branch format 'refs/heads/main' is in schema). It does not compensate for any gaps, but since schema is complete, baseline 3 is justified.

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 action (List) and resource (builds), and mentions optional filters (definition and branch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ado_list_build_definitions' (which lists definitions, not builds) and 'ado_get_build' (single build). The specificity of the verb and resource makes it unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ado_get_build' (single build), 'ado_list_build_definitions' (build definitions), or 'ado_list_pipeline_runs' (pipeline runs). It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from names alone.

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