List CI products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the clarifying parenthetical 'integrations per app', which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination, authentication requirements, or return format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 of ten words, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with the parenthetical adding useful scope 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 the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no required params, no output schema) and the clear schema descriptions, the short description is adequate. It clarifies what a CI product is ('integrations per app') and the limit/filtering params are self-explanatory. A more complex tool would demand more, but for this listing operation the description is sufficiently complete.

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 all three parameters (limit, filter.app, filter.productType) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'List Xcode Cloud CI products (integrations per app)' clearly identifies the action (List), the resource (CI products), and adds clarifying scope ('Xcode Cloud', 'integrations per app'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list-builds or list-schemes, which target different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely declarative and does not mention any specific use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. Sibling tools exist for other resources, but the description doesn't help an agent decide when this is the right choice.

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