pre_release_versions__list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the scope (across all apps) and the TestFlight context, which is helpful but not extensive.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the endpoint URL and sibling differentiation.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers the high-level purpose and scope but doesn't address pagination, sorting, or what fields are returned. It is minimally adequate for guiding selection but not fully comprehensive for invocation.

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%, and the description provides no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline is 3 as per the rubric, since the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly.

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 tool lists version numbers builds were uploaded under, across all apps. It distinguishes itself from a sibling (app_store_versions) by explaining these are TestFlight train versions, not customer-facing App Store versions.

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 explains when to use this tool ('List the version numbers builds were uploaded under') and when not to ('not App Store versions — for what customers see, use app_store_versions'). It provides a clear alternative but does not elaborate on other conditions or prerequisites.

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