get_build

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed information') but provides no further behavioral details beyond what's inherent. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it adds basic context but falls short on disclosing error handling, authentication needs, or response nature.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it could incorporate additional useful context (e.g., about the include parameter) without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal but functional completeness. It describes the core purpose but does not explain what 'detailed information' includes or how the optional include parameter affects the result.

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 both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'TestFlight build'; it does not clarify what the 'include' parameter's enum values do or provide context for 'build_id' format.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific TestFlight build'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_builds (list) and update_build (modify).

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 implies usage for retrieving a single build's details, which is clear from the name. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this versus listing builds or other get tools, neither are exclusions provided.

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