cm_setup_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that the response contains local configuration steps and that the server exposes no API tools until a token is saved and the connection is re-established — state behavior the annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, zero waste. The primary fact (no token yet, plus returned setup steps) is front-loaded, and the dependency on token save/reconnect follows immediately.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what the tool reports, that it returns setup instructions, and the server state that gates the rest of the API surface.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description introduces no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 subject: it reports the absence of a Codemagic API token and returns local setup steps. There are no siblings to distinguish from, so the definition's only job is to be unambiguous about what it does, which it is.

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 establishes the condition under which the tool is relevant (no token saved) and clarifies that no API tools exist until the token is configured and the server reconnected, which effectively tells the agent why it would ever call this. It does not phrase an explicit 'call this when...' trigger, but with no alternative tools available there is nothing to exclude.

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