List builds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" is largely redundant. The description does add value beyond them: it discloses newest-first ordering, enumerates the fields present in each result (which matters since there is no output schema), and explains what the status values signify.

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 compact sentences, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the filtering tip last. The opening "Read-only." is a minor duplication of the readOnlyHint annotation, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields and result ordering carries the return-value burden, and it does so well. Pagination and parameter details are fully covered by a 100%-described schema, so an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the enumerated status/platform values are spelled out there too. The description restates the status values and adds a small hint about filtering by "processing", but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Lists an app's uploaded builds") and immediately adds the ordering ("newest first") plus the exact fields returned (version, build number, platform, processing status, upload time, expiry). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_app_store_versions, which return a different resource.

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?

One concrete tip is given: "Use status 'processing' to see builds still being processed by Apple." That helps with a specific filter state, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over list_app_store_versions or get_app, nor any exclusions or prerequisites — usage is only implied.

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