list_asc_builds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions listing builds and a subsequent action, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. The user is left to assume the tool is safe and returns all builds without side effects.

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 sentence that combines purpose and usage instructions. While concise, it tries to convey too many ideas at once, reducing clarity. A more structured format with separate purpose and usage sections would improve readability.

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?

The description lacks important context such as the return value structure (list of builds with which fields?), error handling, and permissions needed. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the tool returns. The mention of 'highest version number' hints at the output but is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for 'app_id'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it meets the baseline expectation but does not enhance understanding.

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 states it lists TestFlight builds for an app, but it mixes this with specific workflow instructions (find highest version, increment, pass to trigger_build). The core purpose is clear but muddled by additional operational guidance, and it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_builds' which may also list builds.

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 usage before triggering a release build, providing a specific scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_latest_build_number', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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