List build beta details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful domain context (the specific fields returned) but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination limits or response format. This matches the baseline for annotation-covered read tools.

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 sentence that is fully front-loaded, using parentheses to add clarifying detail without waste. It earns its place with specific detail types and a scope qualifier.

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 tool is a simple list operation with well-documented parameters and strong annotations. No output schema is present, but the description names the key data fields, providing enough context for basic use. It falls short of a 5 because it does not describe response structure or any edge-case behavior, but for this simple read-only tool it is largely sufficient.

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%, with each parameter (limit, filter.id, filter.build) already described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('build beta details') with a clear scope ('TestFlight builds'). It enumerates specific detail types (export compliance, auto-notify, internal/external state), which distinguishes it from sibling 'list-builds' that lists builds without these details.

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 provides clear context (TestFlight builds) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list-builds. The mention of beta-specific fields is an implicit hint, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'not for that' guidance.

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