ipa_builds

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose read-only vs mutating behavior, scope of results, pagination, or any permission requirements. The one behavioral signal is the implicit 'read' framing, but the enumerated return fields (title, summary, URL, source repository) duplicate what the existing output schema already provides.

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?

Very short and front-loads the resource scope, then the kind values. The first clause is a noun fragment rather than a statement of action, and the parenthetical '(interactive HTML in the library)' adds modest value, but nothing is bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return structure, and with one optional parameter the surface is small. Still missing: whether results are the complete library or filtered, and how this differs from the many sibling retrieval tools — an agent could easily pick the wrong tool.

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 schema types kind as an unconstrained string with no enum, so the description's 'kind: course | presentation | viewer' is the only place the valid values appear — genuine added meaning. It doesn't say whether omission returns all kinds, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 names the resource precisely (courses, presentations, viewers as interactive HTML in the library) and enumerates the kind categories, which distinguishes it from generic siblings. However, it never states the action — no verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' — so the agent must infer that this returns build records rather than doing something to them. No sibling (ipa_search, ipa_find, ipa_item, ipa_page) is referenced to disambiguate.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool instead of ipa_search, ipa_find or ipa_item, all of which plausibly retrieve similar library content. The kind enumeration hints at a filtering use case but the description never says whether kind is required in practice or what happens when it is omitted (list everything?).

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