validate_codemagic_yaml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that validation is against a schema, implying it is a read-only check, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or whether it only checks syntax or also semantic rules. Adequate but minimal.

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?

A single, clear sentence that conveys the essential function without any unnecessary words. Every part adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is functional but lacking. It does not explain what the validation output looks like (e.g., success/failure messages, error details) or whether it validates all aspects of the YAML. Some behavioral context is missing.

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 only parameter, yaml_content, is fully described in the schema as 'The full contents of a codemagic.yaml file'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema itself, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 purpose: to validate a codemagic.yaml file against the official Codemagic JSON schema. It uses a specific verb (Validate) and resource (codemagic.yaml file), and it is distinct from siblings like get_yaml_template or detect_project_type.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to validate versus using get_yaml_template to get a template first. The description does not mention prerequisites or when validation would be appropriate.

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