get_build

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value by enumerating the categories of data the inspection returns, which is useful given there is no output 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?

Two sentences: the payload is front-loaded, the sourcing instruction trails. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the inspected fields. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the lone parameter's provenance is stated, so an agent has everything needed to call it.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already supplies type/format/pattern for it. The description adds provenance semantics ('a build ID returned by search'), telling the agent where a valid value originates — meaningful beyond the raw UUID 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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect one build') and enumerates the resource payload (listing, builder, source links, indexing status, file paths, revisions, line counts). A single-build fetch is clearly distinguished from the sibling search_builds.

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?

'Use a build ID returned by search' tells the agent where the required identifier comes from and implies this tool follows search_builds rather than replacing it. No explicit exclusion of alternatives (e.g., search_build_content), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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