List builds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that results are the app's most recent builds and include processing/TestFlight state, but it omits the default limit (10), what include_expired does, and whether results are paginated. With annotations carrying safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource stated first and the payload contents second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the returned fields (processing state, TestFlight states, IDs). However, for a five-parameter listing tool it says nothing about default limit, expired-build inclusion, or result ordering, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 60%: app, version and platform are documented in the schema, while limit (default 10, max 50) and include_expired (default false) have no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so the two undocumented parameters remain opaque to the agent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists an app's most recent builds') and names what the result contains (processing state, TestFlight states, IDs), so the agent knows this is a read-only build listing. It never names a sibling such as get_build for a single build or upload_build for creation, so the differentiation from neighbors is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like get_build for a single build. The phrase 'most recent builds' weakly implies a default recency-ordered listing, but nothing tells the agent when this is the right call versus another listing tool.

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