list_builds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: only processed builds appear, and newly uploaded binaries lag before showing up. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior even though a 'next' parameter exists, and does not qualify how long the delay is.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by flagging eventual consistency, though it could be more specific about the delay.

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?

For a paginated list tool with no output schema and zero-described parameters, the description omits the essentials: what a build record contains, how pagination via 'next' works, and default/max limits. The timing hint is useful but does not compensate for these 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% across three parameters (appId, next, limit), so the description bears the full explanatory burden. It mentions none of them, leaving the agent to infer that appId scopes the listing and that next/limit drive pagination.

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 processed builds') scoped to an app, and the word 'processed' implicitly separates it from sibling list_build_uploads. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but an agent can distinguish the two from the text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'processed builds' plus 'Uploaded binaries may take time to appear' hints that this tool returns builds after processing, whereas list_build_uploads covers pending uploads. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of get_build as an alternative for a single build.

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