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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds that logs are bounded and that the result names the runner, workspace, and a suggested diagnostic command, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination or any limits on the log_cursor, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 unnecessary words. The main action is front-loaded and the output hint is concise. It is efficient, though it could afford more detail without becoming verbose.

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 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the core purpose and some output, but omits all optional parameters (step, log_cursor) and any conditions on usage. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still fails to give an agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly with the correct parameters.

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 meaning. It mentions 'bounded' which relates to the limit parameter, but does not explain build_id, step, or log_cursor at all. No parameter names, formats, or constraints are given. This is a critical gap for a tool with 4 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (bounded logs for a failed CI build), and hints at the output (runner, workspace, diagnostic command). The function is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ci_get_build_status or ci_list_failed_builds, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for a failed CI build' implies a condition, but does not explicitly state prerequisites or when to prefer this over ci_get_build_status or ci_run_build_command. No exclusions or alternative routes are mentioned.

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