list_ci_build_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining expected behavior. It does disclose read-style behavior ('List') and describes the kind of data returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention important behavioral details such as default pagination, ordering, or what happens when a build has zero actions, leaving some room for inference.

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 crisp sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the resource and output contents; the second sentence provides the crucial integration guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and explicitly names the downstream tools for the returned action id. It does not elaborate on return shape or result paging, but these are minor given the simple list operation and the schema's limit parameter.

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 heavy lifting is already done by the schema. The description adds a small semantic link by mentioning the returned action id chains into sibling tools, but it does not add new meaning to either 'build_run_id' or 'limit' beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the tool lists the actions of an Xcode Cloud build run and enumerates the action types (build, test, analyze, archive). It also specifies the kind of information returned (execution progress, completion status, issue counts), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list issues, artifacts, or build runs.

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 provides clear context: it works from a build_run_id (sourced from list_ci_build_runs) and it feeds the returned action id into list_ci_issues and list_ci_artifacts. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives, but the downstream dependency is clearly articulated, giving an agent enough guidance for correct sequencing.

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