[Read] List builds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explicitly states read-only behavior, specifies the data points included, and explains the sort order. This is substantial, though it doesn't cover potential edge cases like pagination 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 a single well-structured sentence with 'Read-only' front-loaded, then the action, followed by a parenthetical enumerating fields and ordering. No wasted words.

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 covers what the tool returns and its ordering, and the schema provides comprehensive parameter details. For a simple list tool with no output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for both appId and limit (including default and max/min). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists uploaded builds for an app, enumerates the fields returned (build id, version/build number, upload date, processing state, expiry), and notes ordering (most recent first). This distinguishes it from siblings like asc_build_get and asc_build_latest.

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 provides a clear use case: listing all builds for an app. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives such as asc_build_get or asc_build_latest, so it falls short of a 5.

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