List NodeJS builds

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the list is paginated, scoped to a specific website, filterable by states, and the results contain uuids that can be used for log polling. It does not contradict the annotations and goes beyond them by describing the workflow and response linkage.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by filtering guidance and a cross-reference to the log endpoint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, paginated list endpoint with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, how to filter, and how to proceed to logs. The only minor gap is that pagination parameters are not explained in the description, but the word 'paginated' plus schema coverage makes this acceptable. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape could help, but the uuid-to-logs hint partially compensates.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value for `states` by enumerating valid values and explaining that they filter by build state. It also implicitly ties `username`/`domain` to 'a specific website.' However, it does not add meaning beyond the schema for `page` or `per_page`, which are already adequately described as pagination parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a paginated list of Node.js build processes for a specific website.' It clarifies that a build is 'a single run of the Node.js build pipeline,' distinguishing this from deployment or log tools. The scope ('for a specific website') and the mention of the uuid-to-logs workflow further disambiguate it from sibling tools.

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 gives clear operational guidance: use the `states` query parameter to filter, and use the returned `uuid` to poll output via the 'Get Node.js Build Logs' endpoint. It explicitly names the follow-up endpoint, which is a useful alternative. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with other listing tools like `hosting_listJsDeployments` or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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