asc_list_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the processing state progression (PROCESSING → VALID) and the tool's role in monitoring. While it could detail more states or pagination, the core behavior is adequately described.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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, the description implies what the tool returns (builds and their states). For a simple list tool, this is sufficient. It does not cover error cases or full state enumeration, but the core functionality is complete enough for agent usage.

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 only parameter is 'limit', which is well-defined in the schema with default, min, max. The description does not add parameter info, but the schema coverage is not needed since the parameter is self-explanatory. The description could mention limit's effect, but it's not a 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List recent uploaded builds and their processing states.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (builds), and the context of processing states. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like asc_app_status or asc_upload_build.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use after an upload to watch for the build becoming VALID.' This provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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