list_builds

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

Description only states 'gets a list' with no annotation support. Does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read operation, minimally adequate but lacks detail.

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?

Single focused sentence in Japanese, concise and front-loaded with the core action. No superfluous words, but could benefit from a brief usage note.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return format, default behavior, or how to use the limit parameter effectively, leaving gaps 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (appId described, limit not). Description adds no parameter meaning beyond schema. The missing limit description (default, max, min) is not compensated, leaving the agent without clarity on its purpose.

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 it retrieves a list of builds uploaded to TestFlight, using a specific verb (取得する) and resource (TestFlightのビルド). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_apps (apps) and list_app_versions (versions).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_app_info, list_app_versions). No context on filtering or pagination, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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