get_builds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it gets a list and returns a dictionary, without mentioning side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the read-only nature. This lack of detail leaves behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise with three sentences: purpose, parameter list, and return type. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and available output schema, the description covers basic functionality and parameters. However, it omits contextual details like pagination, default ordering, or result limits, which are relevant for a listing endpoint. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, but the description compensates with an 'Args' block that provides clear, concise descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Optional filter by application identifier'). These add meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields, though they are minimal and could include formatting details.

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 a list of builds from Codemagic build history,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_build_status (which retrieves a single build) and cancel_build, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_build_status or start_build. It implies usage for listing builds with optional filters but lacks direct comparisons or when-not guidance.

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