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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail (fallback to listing recent jobs when jobId is absent), but says nothing about polling, pagination of the recent-jobs list, or auth requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its returned fields, then the fallback behavior. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 description carries the return-value burden and does so well by listing state values, phase, compiler errors, failing tests, TestFlight outcome, and log tail. It is nearly complete, lacking only guidance on the deviceId/workSessionId context that the schema partially covers.

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 coverage is 75%; waitMs, deviceId, and workSessionId are documented in the schema, but jobId has no schema description. The description compensates by establishing that jobId is optional and what happens without it, adding real meaning for the one undocumented parameter.

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 (summarize) and resource (iOS job/build) and enumerates the exact contents of the summary. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling ios_build, which starts a build rather than reporting on one.

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?

It gives one useful usage rule: 'Without a jobId, list recent jobs,' which tells the agent how the tool behaves with and without the key parameter. However, it names no alternative tool (e.g., ios_build, job listing) and no conditions for when not to use it.

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