get_asc_release_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and what data is included, which is sufficient for a non-destructive tool. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response structure, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word adds value, and no extraneous information is present.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the dashboard includes (build, TestFlight, App Store version, submission state). It is reasonably complete for a read-only tool, though it could mention error handling or format. The description is clear enough for most use cases.

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 covers the sole parameter app_id with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'full release pipeline status dashboard for an app'. It lists concrete components (latest build, TestFlight, App Store version, submission state) which distinguishes it from siblings like get_asc_review_status that focus on a single aspect.

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 use for obtaining a comprehensive release status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., get_asc_review_status, get_build) nor provide exclusions or context about prerequisites. The guidance is reasonable but not explicit.

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