Get build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response detail, but for a simple read-only get tool this is a minor gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key returned data fields and the resource scope. There is no filler or repetition, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, this description is mostly complete: it states the exact resource and the fields returned. It does not describe the response shape or error behaviors, but the absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the explicit field list.

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 fully describes build_id with a clear pattern and example URL context, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is 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 names a specific resource ('one Travis build') and lists the fields returned: state, branch/PR, commit, timing, and job IDs. This clearly distinguishes it from list_builds (multiple builds) and get_job_log (a log), though it has some overlap in scope with get_build_jobs since it also mentions job IDs.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as get_build_jobs or list_builds. The description implies a use case (retrieving details of a single build) but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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