list_builds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the processing state and what VALID means, and notes it is a Pro feature. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or what fields are returned for each build.

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 conveys the core functionality and an important clarification about VALID state. It avoids repetition and unnecessary detail, earning full marks for efficiency.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description provides a basic understanding of what it does. However, it does not explain the response structure or additional details like pagination or ordering, which might be expected given the absence of an output schema. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 explains 'limit' and 'app_id' clearly. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'List recent builds for an app with processing state (VALID = ready to use).' It uses a specific verb+resource and clarifies the meaning of VALID. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like review_status or app_details, though the resource 'builds' is distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the function and mentions 'Pro feature' as a limitation, but does not explain context, exclusions, or how this compares to other build-related tools such as wait_for_build or attach_build.

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