Get build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds non-obvious behavior: the tool can block for a bounded period (wait_minutes), processing typically takes 5-30 minutes, and a timeout result explains how to resume. It doesn't mention auth/permission scope or result truncation, keeping it short of a 5.

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 filler, with the core purpose and return contents front-loaded before the operational note about wait_minutes. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully compensates by listing what the response contains, which is the key thing an agent needs to decide whether to call it. With 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, the remaining gap is minor: no guidance on the singular-vs-list choice against list_builds.

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% for all five parameters, including defaults (latest build, ASC_APP_ID, IOS), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's only parameter-related addition is restating the purpose of wait_minutes, which the schema already explains; 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Shows one build in detail') and enumerates the returned facets: processing/TestFlight states, export compliance, beta review, groups, What to Test notes and the attached App Store version. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from list_builds, so an agent can route between them without opening a schema.

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 second sentence gives a real usage cue for the wait_minutes parameter ('wait for Apple to finish processing a fresh upload'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no alternative named (e.g. list_builds for enumeration, get_app_status for readiness checks). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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