codemagic_get_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the possible status values and mentions that 'finished' includes success/failed result. This is sufficient for a read-only operation, though it could elaborate on response format.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, then lists status values and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 is simple (one parameter, no nested objects). The description covers purpose, status values, and parameter source. It does not detail the response, but an output schema exists (context signal). For a single get, it is adequately complete.

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 input schema only has build_id as a string. The description adds essential context: 'The build id returned by codemagic_start_build or listed by codemagic_list_builds.' With 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates.

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 the status and details of a single build,' specifying a verb and resource. It lists possible status values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like codemagic_list_builds (lists builds) and codemagic_start_build (starts 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?

The description explains that the tool requires a build_id, which comes from codemagic_start_build or codemagic_list_builds, providing context on when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools imply alternatives.

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