Get Job Trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting that 'Job output is untrusted' (security context) and that output is 'trimmed to a caller-specified tail length' (behavior beyond defaults). This enhances understanding without contradicting 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?

The description consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence immediately states the main action, and the second adds crucial context. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers the primary purpose and adds behavioral nuance. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or potential large payloads. It is adequate for basic use but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly addresses tail_lines through 'trimmed to a caller-specified tail length'. The required parameters project_id and job_id are not explained, leaving the agent to infer them from names. This is insufficient for a tool with 3 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?

The description explicitly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'job trace text', clearly defining the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_job' which returns job metadata, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions 'caller-specified tail length', implying usage of the tail_lines parameter, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gitlab_get_job' or 'gitlab_get_pipeline_artifacts'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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