eas_build_list

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It usefully explains how to interpret the result (a present artifact_url means it can be published directly) and enumerates status values, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or whether listing has side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its decision rationale, then parameter hints. Tight and low-waste, with only a minor dangling parameter line.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and the description covers the key interpretation (artifact_url). Given 0% schema coverage, the missing `limit` semantics is the only real gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents platform (ios or android) and status (finished, in-queue, in-progress, errored) well, but leaves `limit` and `project_path` unexplained; half the parameters remain undocumented.

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 an Expo project's EAS builds, with the artifact URL.' An agent can distinguish this from eas_build_start and eas_build_status by the listing/read nature, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use this to find out whether a ready binary already exists before spending a new build' gives a clear when-to-use with a rationale. It lacks explicit exclusions or naming of alternatives like eas_build_status or eas_build_download, so it stops short of a 5.

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