get_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('retrieve'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first, followed by parameter details. Each sentence adds value, but the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., by avoiding repetition of 'Required'). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and the description fully covers the two parameters, the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases or performance), which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does this by clearly explaining both parameters: 'build_source' is described with its purpose, required status, and valid values ('rdc' and 'vdc'), and 'build_id' is explained as a unique identifier with guidance on how to obtain it. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve the details related to a specific build by passing its unique ID in the request.' This specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('build details'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_build_for_job' or 'lookup_builds', which prevents a perfect score.

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 by mentioning that build IDs can be looked up using the 'Lookup Builds endpoint', which suggests this tool is for retrieving details after identifying a build. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_build_for_job' or 'lookup_builds', nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required parameters.

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