list_ci_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries more responsibility: it states the account scope, what fields will be returned, and the relationship between the product id and the CI build-runs tool. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but the basic behavior of a read-only list is adequately disclosed.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the most useful workflow hint about using the returned id for a related list. Every clause serves a purpose.

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 the simple list operation, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description covers the key essentials: what this returns and how it connects to the next CI step. It could mention default pagination behavior, but that is reasonably supplied by the limit parameter's own documentation.

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 parameters themselves are well documented. The tool description gives no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema's own descriptions. Hitting the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles the semantics.

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 states a specific action, 'List the Xcode Cloud products', with the exact resource and real returned fields. It also explicitly links the returned id to list_ci_build_runs, which distinguishes it from that sibling and clarifies its role in the CI workflow.

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 gives clear usage context by explaining how the returned id feeds into list_ci_build_runs. It does not mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, but the primary workflow is explicit enough to guide correct invocation.

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