parent_software_version_by_build

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the specific return fields and the HTTP 404 error for unknown builds, providing useful context beyond the annotations.

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose, then a list of return fields, error note, and a spec link. While efficient, the return field list and link add some length without critical decision-making value for an agent.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides return fields and error behavior. However, the lack of parameter explanations makes it incomplete for agents that need to construct valid requests.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'buildNumber' in the path and the function, but does not describe what a build number represents or what 'parentSoftwareId' refers to. This is insufficient for an agent to select proper values.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a parent-software version by its build number'. It includes the specific API path, return fields, and distinguishes from the sibling 'parent_software_version_by_number' which uses a different lookup method.

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 implies usage context through the path and error handling ('Unknown build → HTTP 404'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it exclude any scenarios.

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