list_builds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema — no mention of pagination, default page size, sort order, or how many builds are returned, which are the traits an agent still needs for a list endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and both optional filters land in the first read. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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 no output schema, the agent has no view of the return shape — whether builds come back as a bare array, a paginated envelope, or with cursor links — and the description does not fill that gap. For a simple three-parameter read tool the omission is survivable but leaves a real hole.

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 100%, including an enum for processingState, so the schema does all the parameter work. The description only restates that version and processingState act as filters; it adds no format hints (e.g. version string shape) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List builds for an app') plus the two optional narrowing dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_build as the single-build alternative, but 'list' versus 'get' makes the split reasonably clear.

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?

'Optionally filtered by version or processing state' implies the filtering use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus get_build, nor any stated prerequisite such as needing an appId from list_apps. Usage is inferable rather than taught.

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