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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds the returned field set and the underlying REST endpoint, which gives the agent confidence this is a plain filtered read. It stops short of disclosing pagination, ordering, or empty-cache 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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the endpoint mapping appended for orientation. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and even lists the returned fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gaps remain around pagination and auth.

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 100% and appId is already described there, so the description adds nothing new about the parameter beyond implying it identifies the application. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the build caches for an application') and enumerates the returned fields (id, size, last used, workflow). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like codemagic_list_applications and codemagic_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?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'for an application' scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or prerequisite note (e.g. that the app must exist or that caches reflect past builds). No alternatives are named, though none of the siblings overlap in purpose.

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