get_build

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the response will meaningfully include and implies a read-only operation through 'Get'. However, it does not cover error behavior, permissions, or whether the returned fields are always present.

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, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does and what it returns. There is no redundant wording or fluff.

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?

At a single-parameter retrieval tool, the description tells the agent the key purpose and highlight output fields, with enough specificity to support calling it. The lack of an output schema and annotations weakens full completeness, but the core usage is sufficiently covered.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents build_id as the required ID. The description adds no further meaning to the single parameter, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single TestFlight build by ID'), and two distinct data aspects it returns (pre-release version and distribution state). This cleanly differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_builds and get_build_status.

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 the tool is for retrieving one specific build when its ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for basic dispatch, but no exclusion or alternative routing is provided.

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