list_builds

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It makes the read-only nature clear via 'List' and discloses the exact output fields, including the nested buildBetaDetail distribution state. It omits ordering and paging behavior, but those are minor for a listing tool.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first states the action and output, the second states filtering. It is slightly field-heavy and repeats 'processing state', but each clause contributes essential information.

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 100% schema parameter coverage, one required param, and no output schema, the description adequately covers input and return shape by enumerating returned fields. Minor missing details like default ordering are still acceptable for a list utility.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description only echoes the filtering params (version, processing_state) without adding examples, format details, or edge-case meaning, which lands right at the baseline.

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?

Uses a concrete verb ('List') and resource ('TestFlight builds for an app'), enumerates the returned fields, and names the two filtering dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_build or get_build_status, which target a single build or 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?

Gives a clear context of when to use the tool: listing TestFlight builds for an app, optionally filtered by version or processing state. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_build for single-build lookups, 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.