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

Annotations provide only a title, no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which adds some transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that no builds are triggered or that this is a safe inspection action, leaving some ambiguity given the build-related name.

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 with no filler. Every word earns its place: 'List' states the action, 'your app build jobs and outcomes' specifies the resource and result. It is appropriately minimal for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what the tool returns (build jobs and outcomes). It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify whether results are limited to the current user's builds or how recent the outcomes are, but overall it is adequate for the low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully described (empty object). With no parameters, there is no semantic burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because the description's 'your app build jobs' loosely implies scope but adds no parameter-specific constraints, which is acceptable.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List your app build jobs and outcomes'. It corrects the misleading title 'Builds apps' by clarifying this is a listing operation. It does not explicitly compare to siblings like apps_build or apps_buildstatus, so it misses full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apps_build or apps_buildstatus. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context clues beyond the verb 'List'. This is a clear gap for an agent deciding between many related app tools.

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