List builds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It still omits ordering semantics, whether the list is truncated at the default limit of 20, and whether results span all projects when no project is given.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment that lists only relevant content, with zero filler. It loses a point only because the fragment lacks a verb, making the action slightly less explicit than it could be.

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 five-parameter, all-optional filter tool with no output schema, the return-field list is helpful, but nothing explains how the filters combine or what the default listing covers. The agent can call it, but cannot confidently predict the result set.

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 80%, so the schema already documents app, project, platform and channel; the description adds essentially nothing beyond the word 'channels'. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the work, but no extra meaning is contributed.

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?

Names the resource (builds) and enumerates what comes back: install link, version, size, installs, store readiness status, channels. That is specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings, but the definition never says what makes it different from latest_build or build_info, which an agent must guess at.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer latest_build or build_info, and no statement of prerequisites or how results are ordered or truncated. The word 'Recent' hints at scope but leaves the agent to infer the rest.

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