builds__app_store_version__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read' is consistent and adds no contradiction. It provides the endpoint but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, error conditions, or return format. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Read', immediately followed by the resource and endpoint. No redundant content; every word earns its place.

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 simple read operation with no output schema, the description identifies the return concept (App Store version) and the required input pattern (build ID). The include parameter description adds useful context about relationship fetching. It does not describe response structure, but the resource is standardized and inferable.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including the 'ID from the matching list call' note for id and a detailed description for include about relationship pulling and cost. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Read') and the specific resource ('App Store version for a build'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like builds__get (reads the build itself) and builds__app__get (reads the app). The endpoint path further clarifies the exact relationship.

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 implies usage when needing the App Store version for a given build ID, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. No sibling differentiation or when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the resource name.

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