list_builds

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by noting that the result includes durable job status and artifacts, but it does not explain pagination, filtering semantics, or what 'durable' means in practice. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 one concise sentence with the main action front-loaded and no filler. It loses a point only because some terms like 'durable job status' are vaguely worded and could be more precise without lengthening the description.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves an agent uncertain about how to filter or paginate results. It mentions status and artifacts as included output, but does not describe the behavior of the cursor, limit, format, actor, or branch parameters. The readOnly annotation helps, but the description is still incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 bears the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at the type enum via 'publish and download builds' and at status via 'durable job status,' but leaves actor, limit, branch, cursor, format, and status filter semantics unexplained. This is insufficient for seven parameters.

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 a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('publish and download builds') for a designated project, and adds that results include job status and artifacts. It distinguishes the tool as a listing operation from siblings like get_build or download_build, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_build, create_build, or download_build. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would lead an agent to choose this tool over a sibling.

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