Get build

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to disclose what comes back — and it does, naming five included payload areas. It stops short of stating whether missing sub-resources appear as nulls or are omitted, and says nothing about permissions or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the returned-content list packed into a prepositional phrase; no filler, no redundancy against the name or title.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and the enumerated field list does that adequately for a single-resource read. Minor gaps — null handling and whether the App Store version link is a full object or an ID — keep it below a 5.

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 schema already documents buildId as coming from list_builds. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 ('Gets') and resource ('a build') and enumerates exactly which sub-resources come back (marketing version, TestFlight states, test notes, beta groups, attached App Store version). This distinguishes it in practice from list_builds, but the description never names or contrasts with any 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool fetches one build by ID, and the 'from list_builds' chain hint lives in the schema rather than the description. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_builds or get_app, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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