get_worker_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but 'Get details of a Worker build' only communicates a generic read operation. It does not explain what kind of build information is returned, how builds relate to Worker scripts or deployments, or any relevant statefulness, such as whether builds expire or require special permissions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is terse enough that some behavioral and contextual information is missing.

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 simple two-parameter get operation, the description is minimally viable, but it omits important context such as what 'details' includes, how to discover valid build IDs, and how this tool differs from get_worker_script or list_worker_builds. The absence of an output schema further increases the need for richer description, so this is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage ('The build ID', 'The account ID'), so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds no additional parameter context, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Worker build'), and the singular 'details' makes clear this is a fetch-by-ID operation rather than a list operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_worker_builds or get_worker_script, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_worker_builds or get_worker_script. The description only states the action and resource, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection criteria from the tool name and siblings.

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