list_builds

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only mentions the output fields and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, pagination, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient with no unnecessary words, though it could potentially be structured to include usage guidance.

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's simplicity, the description covers the basic purpose and output fields, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, it lacks behavioral context such as read-only nature or any constraints, which is needed given the absence of annotations.

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?

The schema has one parameter, app_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter beyond implying it identifies the app; it adds no details about format, how to obtain it, or relationships to other tools. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 (list), the resource (TestFlight builds), and the app scope, and enumerates the fields returned (version, build number, processing state). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_app_store_versions by specifying TestFlight builds, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 the use case—listing TestFlight builds for an app—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other list tools or any exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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