List builds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' makes the read-only nature reasonably clear, and the optional filters are stated. However, it does not disclose pagination, result ordering, default limit behavior, or expected response shape.

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 sentence with no filler; the core action and optional filters are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for invoking the tool with the required appId and optional filters. But with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of return-format, pagination, or default-limit context leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to use the results.

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 about 75%, with appId, version, and processingState already described in the schema. The description restates the version and processingState filters but adds no new meaning, and the undocumented limit parameter is not clarified anywhere.

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 verb ('List'), a clear resource ('builds for an app'), and the optional filtering dimensions (version string, processing state). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_build and expire_build without needing to inspect the schema.

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 makes the basic usage explicit: call this when you need to list builds for a given app. However, it does not mention alternatives such as get_build for a single build, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so routing guidance is only implied.

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