codemagic_get_app

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get details') without mentioning side effects, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or other constraints. The behavior is standard for a 'get' tool.

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 very concise with three short lines covering purpose, return categories, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details.

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 tool has one parameter and an output schema, so the description adequately covers what is returned (categories) and sourcing the app_id. It could be more explicit about output structure, but the output schema covers that. Overall sufficient for the complexity.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful context for the only parameter app_id: 'The Codemagic application id (from codemagic_list_apps)'. This tells the agent where to obtain the value, adding value beyond the schema's string type.

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 'Get details for a single Codemagic application' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the returned information (repository, branches, workflows, builds). It distinguishes from siblings like codemagic_list_apps (listing all) and codemagic_get_build (specific build).

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 implies usage after codemagic_list_apps via the arg note 'from codemagic_list_apps', but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor contrast with siblings. No alternative tool names are mentioned.

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