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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by revealing key output concepts (failed step, log cursor) and prescribing the next action on failure, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output are stated first, and the conditional follow-up action is provided in the second sentence, making the description easy to scan.

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 with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits any explanation of the include_logs parameter and uses an imprecise sibling name, leaving minor but real 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 carries full responsibility for explaining parameters, but it does not explicitly explain build_id or include_logs. The mention of 'inspect a CI build' weakly implies build_id, but include_logs is completely unaddressed, leaving the agent without guidance on its effect.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('a CI build'), and further clarifies what the tool returns: the failed step and log cursor. It distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to a follow-up tool, though it refers to 'read_build_logs' rather than the exact sibling name 'ci_read_build_logs'.

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 guidance to use read_build_logs next when the status is failed, which is a clear conditional routing to an alternative. It does not spell out when to prefer ci_list_failed_builds or when not to call this tool, but the main sequencing intent is clear.

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