Codemagic

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'List' implies read-only and 'all' implies no pagination/filtering, it lacks critical behavioral details: return value structure, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'build caches' specifically contain. Does not address consequences or 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?

Brief and front-loaded with the action statement. The 'Args' section is functional but somewhat redundant with MCP schema structure; however, given the schema lacks descriptions, including this inline documentation is justified. No wasted sentences, but minimal content overall.

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 list tool, it covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., cache metadata, sizes, expiration dates) to guide the agent in using the output. Currently adequate but incomplete.

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 0% (app_id has no schema description). The description compensates by documenting the required parameter in the Args section: 'app_id: The Codemagic application ID.' This provides essential semantic meaning missing from the schema, though it lacks format constraints or examples.

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?

Clear verb ('List') + specific resource ('build caches') + scope ('for a Codemagic application'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_cache' or 'delete_all_caches' despite having overlapping resource domains.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid app_id), or workflow context (e.g., 'use this before delete_cache to identify cache IDs').

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