get_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the core action and does not add any context about response format, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is essentially a restatement of the tool's name and adds no transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple get operation, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'details' are returned, nor does it provide any usage context. The single parameter is well-schema'd, but the agent lacks information about return values or any prerequisites, making the description incomplete for practical use.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'buildId' with its description 'The build ID'. The tool description does not add further semantic meaning, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional nuances like parameter formatting or constraints are needed.

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 action ('Get details') and the specific resource ('a specific build'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_builds' that enumerates builds. The use of 'specific' implies a singular build identified by an ID, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_builds' or other get tools. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a buildId) or mention any exclusions, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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