list_build_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It mentions 'List' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination, permission requirements, or whether the response includes only metadata. The phrase 'stored in Pulp' adds a bit of context but is insufficient to inform the agent about side effects or limitations.

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, but the second sentence largely repeats the first ('List all available log files' vs 'Shows all log and config files'). It could be condensed to a single unambiguous sentence. While it is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, the redundancy and lack of extra detail make it only moderately concise.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives minimal context. It does not explain what types of log files are included, how to interpret the output, or any error conditions. The mention of 'from the server' and 'stored in Pulp' provides minor environment context, but overall the tool lacks sufficient detail for an agent to anticipate results or handle edge cases.

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?

The input schema has a single required parameter, build_id (integer), with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention build_id at all, leaving its meaning, format, or constraints entirely to the schema. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'log files for a build'. The second sentence clarifies scope by specifying 'log and config files stored in Pulp for this build'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_log, read_log_tail, and search_log, which operate on content rather than simply listing.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states what it does but not when an agent should choose it over siblings like search_log or get_build_info. No exclusions or preferred scenarios are mentioned.

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