build_beta_details__list

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

The description adds context that annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It discloses the endpoint path and the fact that this is a list operation. The description does not contradict annotations (no annotation_contradiction). It provides enough behavioral transparency for a read-only, idempotent list tool.

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 three concise sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, immediately distinguishes from a sibling, and ends with the endpoint path. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 6 parameters (all optional), 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and is a straightforward list endpoint, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core purpose and relationship to sibling tools. A minor gap is not explaining pagination behavior or that the 'build' filter expects a specific ID format, but the schema descriptions cover that partially.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it doesn't explain how 'include' with 'build' relationship works or what the filter parameters expect. The description could have elaborated on the relationship between build IDs and this endpoint.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'TestFlight state of builds', and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'builds__list' by noting that this is the 'beta side of a build' whereas build attributes come from that other tool. It also specifies the exact fields returned: whether external testing is available and how the build was distributed.

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 for when to use this tool (to get TestFlight/beta state) and explicitly contrasts it with builds__list for build attributes. However, it does not state when NOT to use this tool or mention any prerequisites, such as needing a build ID first.

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