list_ci_build_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose 'Newest first' ordering and the expected return fields, but it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, mention side effects, or describe pagination behavior beyond the parameter-level default limit.

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 description is a single concise sentence that leads with the action and resource, then packs the return contents and ordering into a parenthetical list. There is no redundant or speculative prose.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the expected fields and the sort order, which covers the main return context. It lacks an explanation of pagination or the default result count, but the limit parameter description already communicates the default, so the residual gap is small for a straightforward list tool.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description including limits, defaults, and the product_id vs workflow_id relationship. The tool description adds only a high-level 'product or workflow' framing, so the schema does most of the semantic work.

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 and resource ('List Xcode Cloud build runs') and scopes it to a product or workflow. The detailed field list and 'Newest first' ordering make it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_ci_build_actions, list_ci_issues, and list_ci_artifacts.

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 phrase 'for a product or a workflow' provides implied context for when to use the tool and how filtering should work. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_ci_build_actions or list_ci_artifacts, so usage guidance is inferable but not stated.

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