CinderRoute Agentic CI Operations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is an inspection operation and discloses the meaningful outputs: failed step and log cursor. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or side effects, but 'Inspect' and the read-style guidance make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, the output is summarized, and the follow-up guidance is placed at the end. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite being concise, the description omits details about the include_logs parameter and the exact shape or meaning of the returned status. Since there is no output schema, the description is the only source of return expectations, and 'failed step and log cursor' is useful but incomplete for all possible outcomes.

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 for parameter semantics, but it does not explain build_id or include_logs beyond what the schema already shows. The names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no detail about how include_logs affects the response or what format build_id should take.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('a CI build') and states the key returned data: failed step and log cursor. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_build_logs by explicitly naming it as the next step.

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 gives explicit sequential guidance: 'Use read_build_logs next when status is failed.' This tells an agent when to follow up with a specific alternative. It does not mention other siblings or when not to use this tool, but for a simple status inspection, the context is clear enough.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It tells the agent this is a read-only list and constrains results to 'active failed' builds, but it doesn't explain what 'active' means, whether builds are ordered, how many results are returned, or any other behavioral details. With no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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: two short sentences with the core purpose first. It wastes no words and directly adds the useful next-step workflow hint.

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 and the workflow hint ('pass returned build_id to get_build_status') is useful. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out what fields the list returns (besides build_id) and does not clarify the `project` or `limit` parameters' behavior.

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%. The description does not clarify the meaning or expected values of the `project` parameter, nor the pagination/limit behavior beyond schema constraints. The description adds virtually no parameter meaning beyond the bare names.

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 identifies the resource ('active failed CI builds') and the action ('List'). It also distinguishes the tool's role from get_build_status by linking the returned build_id to that sibling tool.

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 a clear usage context: start by listing failed builds, then pass a returned build_id to get_build_status. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool (e.g., if you already have a build_id), but the intended workflow is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'latest build state' and includes build_id for failures, which is helpful, but it omits pagination behavior, whether it includes archived repos, or the format of the response. As a read-only listing tool, it doesn't state that it makes no changes (no readOnlyHint annotation).

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 exceptionally concise, two sentences with no waste. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the build_id hint is placed naturally. It is slightly under-specifying given the tool's complexity, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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?

With four optional parameters, no annotation, and no output schema, the tool is moderately complex. The description omits return structure, pagination behavior, and how filters work, leaving an agent guessing about how to call it with the right arguments. It includes the critical build_id linkage, but lacks practical details.

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 explain each parameter. It only mentions org (not by name) and build_id, but does not explain page, language, or visibility. The schema provides names and defaults but no meaning; the description adds no value for these parameters.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('repositories'), and includes a distinguishing detail: it covers 'latest build state' and mentions that failed builds include a build_id. This differentiates it from sibling ci_list_failed_builds and ci_get_build_status, clarifying its purpose.

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 it is the entry point for listing repositories, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over ci_list_failed_builds (e.g., for all repos vs. only failures). It hints at usage for build state monitoring but lacks clear alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It notes the logs are 'bounded' and that the result includes specific fields, which adds context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though 'Read' implies it), any auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for missing build IDs. The description provides some behavioral clues but not comprehensive transparency.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the result content. It is efficient with no filler, though it could be expanded with usage details without losing clarity.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It explains the return content but omits critical context: what 'step' filters, how pagination works via log_cursor, what the limit does, error handling, and any relationship to build status. An agent lacks enough information to call the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 explain parameters, but it does not. The description mentions 'bounded' which loosely relates to the limit parameter, but it does not define step, log_cursor, or limit semantics. An agent cannot infer the purpose or formatting of these parameters from either the schema or the description.

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 reads logs for failed CI builds, and specifies the output contains runner, workspace, and a suggested diagnostic command. This verb+resource+scope is distinct from siblings like ci_get_build_status (status) and ci_list_failed_builds (listing builds), and the phrase 'bounded fictional logs' adds specificity.

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 says 'for a failed CI build', which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance pointing to ci_get_build_status for status checks or ci_list_failed_builds for enumeration, leaving the selection logic partially implicit.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'list or retrieve' implying a read-only operation, but does not state whether it requires special permissions, whether secrets are returned in plaintext, or if the absence of a key returns all secrets. It also does not mention any side effects or limitations on how many secrets can be listed.

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 a single sentence and efficiently conveys the core action. However, it is so short that it misses critical details (like the role of 'key') that would justify a slightly longer description. It is not bloated, so it earns a 4 for conciseness.

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?

With 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover essential details the agent needs. It does not specify the format of secrets, how to retrieve a single one versus listing, potential errors, or required permissions. For a security-related tool like this, the lack of context is a serious omission.

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 schema provides no extra context for any parameters. The description names 'project', 'environment', and implicitly 'key' via 'retrieve' but does not explain what 'key' does, whether it is optional, or how it interacts with listing. The enum for 'environment' is clear, but the description adds no additional semantics beyond the property names. This is a significant gap.

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 'List or retrieve deployment secrets for a project environment' clearly states the verb (list or retrieve) and resources (secrets, project, environment). It differentiates from siblings since none of them mention secrets. However, it does not specify that 'key' can be used to retrieve a single secret, which is left to the schema, so slight ambiguity remains.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not say 'use this to view secrets' or contrast with ci_run_build_command or ci_trigger_deploy. It only implies a read operation, but which scenarios call for listing vs retrieving is not addressed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions 'fictional', dry-run, and returning an identifier, but it does not clarify what happens when dry_run is false, whether a real build is queued, what side effects occur, or what the identifier is useful for. 'Defaults to dry-run' also merely repeats the schema default rather than adding new behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded, but it spends words repeating 'dry-run' (already in the schema) and uses the vague term 'fictional'. It is concise in length but not optimally packed with differentiating or behaviorally useful information.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and sparse parameter docs, the description leaves significant gaps: what diagnostics to run first, what a non-dry-run retry does, and how to consume the returned identifier. An agent could call it, but not with a clear understanding of the workflow or consequences.

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 adds no real semantics for build_id beyond the parameter name, and the dry-run reference duplicates the schema's default value. An agent still cannot tell whether build_id is the original failed build, a format expectation, or how the returned retry identifier relates to it.

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 names a specific action ('Queue') and resource ('a retry'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like ci_get_build_status or ci_list_failed_builds, though the word 'fictional' adds ambiguity about whether this is a real or simulated retry.

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 phrase 'after diagnostics' implies a workflow context but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over ci_run_build_command or ci_trigger_deploy, nor does it state exclusions. Usage guidance is present but mostly implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that execution happens on an isolated runner and that stdout/stderr are bounded, which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention side effects, whether the command can alter state, exit code handling, or how output truncation works.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and outcome are front-loaded, and the build_id linkage tip earns its place by adding important investigative context.

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 command-execution tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It gives the broad purpose and one linkage hint, but omits parameter semantics for most fields, return shape details, failure behavior, and when to choose this tool over sibling log/status tools.

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 for six parameters. It only adds meaning for build_id ('returned by the incident tools to keep the investigation linked') and vaguely implies command. shell, runner_id, timeout_seconds, and working_directory are left completely unexplained beyond schema defaults and constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('diagnostic command on an isolated CI runner') and clearly indicates the output (bounded stdout and stderr) and goal (build troubleshooting). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ci_read_build_logs, but the action and output framing make its purpose reasonably clear.

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 in a build troubleshooting context and gives a chaining hint ('Pass the build_id returned by the incident tools to keep the investigation linked'). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over ci_read_build_logs, ci_retry_build, or other siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('trigger') but does not reveal whether the operation is synchronous/asynchronous, whether it returns a build ID or status, what side effects occur (e.g., initiating CI pipeline), or any authentication/rate-limit requirements. The description is too thin to adequately inform an agent about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 a single, succinct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target. It achieves maximal conciseness without fluff, which is appropriate for the simplicity of the tool.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly. It omits parameter details, return behavior, and usage context. The enum provides some structure, but the description fails to explain the required 'project' or the default 'ref', leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 only references 'environment' implicitly via 'specified environment' and does not explain 'project' or 'ref'. The enum for environment is self-documenting, but 'project' and 'ref' remain undefined. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema and fails to clarify parameter formats or defaults.

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 a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('a new deployment') with a target ('specified environment'). It distinguishes itself from siblings: ci_get_build_status (status), ci_list_repositories (listing), ci_read_secrets (secrets), and ci_run_build_command (arbitrary command) all target different actions. The phrase 'trigger deployment' is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or compare with ci_run_build_command (which could also be used to deploy via a command). An agent must infer from the name that this is the deployment trigger, but no explicit routing or preconditions are given.

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