list_build_uploads

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a non-mutating operation interacting with an external system. "Including upload processing states" adds modest result-content context, but the description does not address ordering, pagination behavior, possible state values, permissions, or empty results.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource, then adds app scope and processing-state context without redundant wording. Its brevity does not obscure the core purpose; missing documentation is assessed in the other dimensions.

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 agent can make a basic call using appId, but the absence of both parameter descriptions and an output schema leaves important gaps around next, limit, and result pagination. The lack of sibling-selection guidance and further result or processing-state detail makes the definition only minimally sufficient for reliable use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate more for the three parameters. "For an app" only indirectly clarifies the required appId, while next and limit receive no explanation of their pagination roles, defaults, or interaction beyond what their names and schema types suggest.

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 gives a specific verb and resource—"List build upload records"—and scopes the operation to an app while mentioning processing states. It does not explicitly distinguish this listing operation from siblings such as get_build_upload, list_builds, or upload_ipa.

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 wording implies using the tool when an agent needs the upload records and processing states for an app. It provides no explicit selection guidance, such as choosing get_build_upload for a known upload or upload_ipa to initiate an upload, and states no prerequisites or exclusions.

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