get_build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the project-scoping and id-provenance context; it says nothing about error behavior (e.g. invalid or unknown buildId) or what the job object contains.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the id disambiguation second. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers the action, scope, and the one ambiguity that matters (job id vs app id). With no output schema, a sentence on the returned job fields would have made it fully self-contained, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 burden and does so well: it defines buildId as the durable build JOB id from list_builds/create_build and explicitly rules out the app id, which is the most likely confusion. It omits the integer/positive constraint but that is minor.

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 (publish or download build job) with the scoping constraint 'from the designated project'. It also names list_builds/create_build as the source of the id, which lets an agent distinguish this getter from the list/create siblings without opening a 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?

It clarifies where the required buildId comes from (list_builds/create_build), which is useful selection context, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the closely related download_build sibling. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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