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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavior. It accurately describes the tool as returning a snapshot of versions and builds, which implies a read-only query. No side effects or complexities are hidden.

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, no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the tool's function, and the second provides a usage example.

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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool returns (versions with review states, builds with processing states), covering the necessary context for an AI agent.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 it provides a snapshot of the app's release state, including App Store versions and builds with their states. It uses a specific verb ('snapshot') and resource ('app's release state'), and distinguishes from siblings like asc_list_builds and asc_job_status which focus on narrower aspects.

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 says 'Use this to answer where is the release right now?', which is clear guidance. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the sibling tools provide implicit alternatives for specific queries.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates multiple file types (.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj and project.yml if using xcodegen) and ensures 'all sources stay in sync'. This effectively communicates the scope and side effects. It does not discuss permissions or error handling, but the disclosure is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 that front-load the purpose and then detail the behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, achieving high conciseness.

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?

The tool modifies files and has no output schema. The description explains what files are updated and the synchronization guarantee. It does not specify the return value (e.g., success/failure), but for a mutation tool of this simplicity, the behavior is adequately covered.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the effect of each parameter: 'Increment the build number' for bump_build and 'Omit to keep the current one' for marketing_version, along with an example format. This provides usage context beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 purpose: bump the local app version before a build, incrementing the build number and optionally setting a new marketing version. It specifies the resource (local app version) and action (bump), and is distinct from sibling tools which cover different operations.

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 says 'before a build', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no further guidance is needed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses all checks performed (credentials, directory, fastlane, xcodebuild, app record). It does not detail error handling or output format, but the behavior is well-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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is verified but omits what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure). Fairly adequate for a simple check tool.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage vacuously). The description adds valuable context about what the tool does beyond the schema, clarifying the verification scope.

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 purpose: verifying the release toolchain end-to-end, listing specific components. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a pre-flight check.

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 says 'Run this first in any release session,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is strong.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read operation.

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 with no unnecessary words, covering purpose and output efficiently.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could mention that the job must exist, but overall provides sufficient context.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds context for job_id (from asc_upload_build) but does not significantly enhance the schema's meaning.

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 checks a build/upload job started by asc_upload_build and specifies return values (status and log tail). It distinguishes from sibling tools like asc_list_builds and asc_app_status.

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 usage after asc_upload_build returns a job ID, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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

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.

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the irreversible nature ('point of no return') and need for human confirmation. Additional details like side effects or response format missing but not critical for this simple tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb and clear object. Every sentence adds essential information.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and safety warning. No gaps given the complexity.

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 build_id is fully described in the schema and echoed in the description. Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds context about build validity and reference to asc_list_builds.

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?

Description clearly states the action: submit the App Store version for review. It specifies the optional build attachment and referencing sibling tool asc_list_builds for checking build status, differentiating from other tools.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite: build must have processingState VALID (check asc_list_builds). Issues a critical warning: 'point of no return — confirm with the human first', guiding when and when not to use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions updating on the 'currently editable version' but does not define what that means (e.g., required app state), nor does it discuss partial vs. full updates, error handling, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and supported by the conditional guidance. Every sentence is essential, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details on parameter interactions, default behaviors (e.g., locale default 'en-US'), error conditions, and expected output. For a tool modifying critical App Store metadata, more completeness is expected.

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 coverage is 50%, with three parameters having descriptions (keywords, whats_new, create_version). The description lists the main fields but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For parameters like description and promotional_text, no constraints or examples are provided. The description provides marginal value over the schema.

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 action ('Update App Store listing metadata') and lists the specific metadata fields (description, keywords, what's-new, promotional text). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like asc_bump_version or asc_submit_review by focusing on metadata updates.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the create_version parameter ('If no editable version exists, pass create_version to open a new one.'). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear for a metadata update scenario.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses async execution (5-15 min), immediate job ID return, configuration via environment variables, and interaction with asc_bump_version. Lacks error handling details, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: first covers purpose and configuration, second covers async behavior and version bump nuance. No redundant words, front-loaded with main action.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential behavioral context: async, job ID, polling, version bump interaction, and env vars. Missing explicit error behavior or success/failure indicators, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

No input parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds value by documenting environment variables (ASC_FASTLANE_*, ASC_UPLOAD_CMD) and default lane, compensating for the lack of parameters.

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 verb (archive, sign, upload), resource (app to TestFlight), and method (fastlane lane with default `fastlane beta`). It distinguishes from siblings like asc_bump_version (version bumping) and asc_job_status (polling).

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?

Explicitly mentions async nature and polling with asc_job_status, and advises when to skip asc_bump_version if the lane increments build number. Could additionally note when to use asc_doctor or asc_submit_review, but sufficient for a single-purpose tool.

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