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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses that returned log lines carry message and timestamp, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page_size/page_token parameters. Adds modest value beyond 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key dependency. No wasted words; the service identifier is tacked on at the end unobtrusively.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, the digest dependency, and the shape of returned log entries. Pagination semantics remain a minor gap but the tool is well-specified overall.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that step_digest originates from depot_get_build_steps, but adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond 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 and resource: retrieving 'log lines (message + timestamp) of one container-build step'. It further distinguishes itself from sibling log tools by scoping to a container-build step and pointing at the digest source, depot_get_build_steps.

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?

It names the prerequisite workflow step explicitly — the digest comes from depot_get_build_steps — which tells an agent how to obtain the required identifier. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., depot_ci_get_job_logs) or when-not-to-use guidance.

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