status_ios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Show' signals a read operation and the description names what is returned (version state, build processing state), but it says nothing about permissions, scope of the query, or whether builds from all versions are included.

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?

Two sentences, both informative, with the return content front-loaded. The second sentence is a prerequisite note that only loosely belongs to this read tool but is short enough not to be waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and there is only one parameter. However, the identifier format ambiguity and the absence of any statement about read-only/non-mutating behavior leave small but real gaps.

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 0% and the single parameter app_identifier is never mentioned in the description. The name is largely self-explanatory, but whether it expects a bundle ID, numeric App Store ID, or app name is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and specific resources (App Store versions with state, latest builds with processing state). The 'App Store' framing implicitly distinguishes it from status_android, though it never names the sibling or says 'iOS' explicitly.

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 note 'A build can be submitted only after it is VALID' implies a workflow use (check status before upload/release), but it never explicitly says when to call this tool versus upload_ios or release_ios. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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