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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: log ordering (oldest first), the shape of each line (step key/name, timestamp, line number, body), and the cursor-based pagination contract. It does not mention retention or empty/truncated result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose and ordering first, then parameter routing, then pagination, then the service reference. No filler, and the critical constraint is front-loaded.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does it well by enumerating the log line fields and the pagination token. An agent has everything needed to call and page correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters; baseline is 3. The description adds the 'exactly one of job_id/attempt_id' constraint and the nextPageToken mapping, which is modest value on top of the schema.

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 (Get) and resource (persisted log lines for a Depot CI job attempt), plus the ordering (oldest first). This distinguishes it from siblings like depot_gha_search_logs and depot_get_build_step_logs, which target different log sources.

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?

Explicitly explains the two mutually exclusive id paths (job_id for latest attempt vs attempt_id for a specific one) and the pagination loop (pass nextPageToken as page_token). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or named sibling alternative, but the context is clear.

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