[Read] Get TestFlight "What to Test" notes

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

The description discloses read-only nature and explains the default behavior of returning all locales when no specific locale is provided. This adds context beyond the title for a tool with no annotations, though it does not cover auth or error behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only.', and contains zero waste. It is efficient and to the point.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and default filtering. It does not elaborate on return format or errors, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of full schema descriptions.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning about locale behavior, but the schema already states it is optional and used to filter.

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 clearly states the verb 'Gets' and the resource 'per-locale TestFlight "What to Test" notes for a build', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like asc_beta_build_localization_update and asc_build_get.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives, and only the 'Read-only' prefix implies usage for reads. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, making it implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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