Get TestFlight Build Details

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds specificity about returning testing states and the ID. No contradictions with annotations. It provides behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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, concise 14-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema, comprehensive annotations), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. A note about the return format or ID format would improve completeness, but it is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a build', clarifying that the buildId parameter identifies the build. However, it does not explicitly state 'Provide the build ID' or give format details, remaining minimal.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'build', clearly stating it retrieves 'internal and external testing states' and the 'buildBetaDetail ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asc_list_builds (which lists all builds) and asc_update_build_beta_details (which updates).

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 implies usage for retrieving beta details for a specific build but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. No exclusions or context are given.

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