list_crash_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: default sorting (newest first), default limit (50, max 200), effect of app_version parameter (default 'latest', ignored when build_id set), and return fields (tester comment, device/OS, etc.). Missing details like pagination or rate limits, but overall transparent.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose and then progressively adding detail about default behavior and filtering options. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description explains what the output contains and references get_crash_log for crash log download. It does not explicitly mention pagination or list structure, but the information is otherwise complete for an API 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all properties. The description adds value by explaining defaults (app_version default 'latest', sort default '-createdDate'), relationships (app_version ignored when build_id set), and output semantics (build.version and build.preReleaseVersion.version).

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 it lists TestFlight crash feedback submissions for an app, including specific details like tester comments, device/OS, resolved tester and build, and a reference to the crash log. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_crash_feedback and get_screenshot_feedback by implying a list vs. single retrieval.

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 explains default behavior (latest pre-release version only) and how to override (set app_version or 'all'), and lists available filters (build, platform, device, OS, tester). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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