get_build_issues

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It uses 'Resolve' which could imply mutation, but doesn't clarify side effects, permissions, or state changes. No behavioral traits beyond the basic action are disclosed.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks clarity due to the ambiguous term 'Resolve'. It could be more efficient by directly stating the function.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify required parameters, return format, or usage context, leaving the agent without sufficient information.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (buildRunId, workflowId, buildNumber, buildSelector). It does not explain which parameters are needed or how they relate to 'resolve' or 'issue counts'.

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 states it resolves a build and returns identity plus issue counts, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_build_logs or get_failed_tests, which also deal with build issues.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.

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