codemagic_list_builds

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (list with filters) but omits details like whether unfiltered calls return all builds, pagination, sorting, or authentication requirements. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 highly concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a bullet list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence is necessary and adds value. No extraneous text.

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 description covers the basic listing functionality with optional filters. An output schema exists, so return format is assumed documented. However, it lacks context on default behavior (e.g., returns all builds when no filters), potential pagination, or sorting. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter's purpose concisely and provides an example for 'status' (e.g., 'building'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's title fields. However, it does not enumerate all possible values or format constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool's function: 'List builds' with optional filters. The verb 'list' and resource 'builds' specify the action and object. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'codemagic_get_build' (single build) and 'codemagic_list_apps' (different resource).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify that this should be used for querying multiple builds or that 'codemagic_get_build' retrieves a single build. No exclusions or recommendations are given.

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