apple_get_build_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; 'Get' implies a read-only lookup and 'including the imported build when available' usefully flags that the build field is conditional. It does not disclose state values, error behaviour for unknown/expired upload IDs, or any rate/timeout characteristics expected of a status-polling endpoint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key resource and the notable response caveat are both up front.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what a 'state' contains and what happens before a build is imported. It partially compensates by mentioning the conditional imported build, but the polling semantics and state vocabulary remain unexplained.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Build Upload ID'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about where that ID comes from (e.g. apple_upload_build's response) or its format, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 ('Get') and resource (a Build Uploads API operation) plus what the response contains ('including the imported build when available'). This distinguishes it reasonably well from apple_upload_build, apple_delete_build_upload and apple_wait_for_build_upload, though it never names the closest sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'current state' implies a single non-blocking status check, which implicitly contrasts with apple_wait_for_build_upload, but the description never states that contrast or tells the agent when to poll versus wait. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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