testflight_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions listing builds and their processing state. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what 'recent' means, whether authentication or configuration is needed, or what happens when no builds exist. The verb 'List' implies safety but does not explicitly confirm it.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact for a simple list operation, though it sacrifices detail needed for full self-sufficiency.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence. It lacks information about return format, parameter roles, and app selection semantics, all of which are important for correct use.

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%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (limit, bundle_id, project_path). The agent receives no explanation of how these parameters affect the query, what values are valid, or how they interact with each other.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent TestFlight/App Store builds') and adds the useful detail of returning processing state. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like testflight_distribute or asc_list, so it falls short of full distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ci_list_runs, asc_list, or testflight_distribute. There is no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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