get_build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the return data in depth, including the exact betaReviewState enum values and the fact that 'What to Test' notes come per locale. It stops short of acknowledging edge cases, such as builds that have no review submission yet or the meaning of a null internal/external state, which keeps it from a 5.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the use case is compactly delivered in the second sentence. The colon-delimited enumeration is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema to otherwise convey the response anatomy.

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 one-parameter GET with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely self-sufficient: it names the backing domain resources (buildBetaDetail, beta app review submission), lists the statuses a user would encounter, and explains why this data matters. It could round out with notes on absence semantics (e.g., what happens when no submission/review exists), which is the main 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 100% — the single parameter build_id is already described as 'Build ID (from list_builds)'. The tool description contributes nothing further about the format, source, of the parameter's semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource, 'Get the TestFlight distribution status of a build', and enumerates exactly what data is returned: buildBetaDetail, betaReviewState enum values, submitted date, and per-locale 'What to Test' notes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as get_build or get_beta_app_review_detail, so it stops one notch short of a 5.

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 final sentence provides a clear use case — 'Use this to find out why a build is not yet available to external testers' — which gives an agent a solid contextual trigger. It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool over get_build or get_beta_app_review_detail, so it is not fully explicit.

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