testflight__feedback_digest

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses concrete operational behavior: it reads at most five pages of 50 submissions per type, ten comments per type per build, and three crash logs (first 40 lines or 4 KB each), and it reports truncation. These limits directly affect how the agent should interpret the result and are not available in the schema or annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what the digest produces, then how to invoke it, then the truncation/read-only caveats. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is padding.

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 an aggregate read tool with an output schema (so return structure need not be explained), the description covers scope, parameters, truncation behavior, and read-only safety. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 already 100%, documenting app, build, and days (with default 14 and max 90). The description largely restates these (name/bundle ID/Apple ID, optional build, days) without adding syntax or format detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Summarize) and resource (TestFlight beta tester crash/screenshot feedback), and enumerates exactly what the digest contains: grouping by build, counts, devices/OS, comments, crash excerpts. This clearly distinguishes it from the granular sibling getters like beta_feedback_crash_submissions__get and beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__get.

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?

Gives a clear usage context and invocation guidance ('Give the app..., optionally a build number or UUID and days'), so the agent knows how to scope the digest. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer an individual sub-resource getter instead of this aggregate, so it falls short of a 5.

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