cb_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'CustomBuild log names' gives no indication of return behavior, permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is read-only. This leaves key behavior ambiguous.

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, front-loaded, and free of filler, earning its place with no repetition of schema content. It could be improved with an action verb, but it is structurally efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the required contextual surface is small, and the description does identify the relevant domain. However, it lacks a clear operation, return semantics, or relationship to sibling CustomBuild commands, leaving an agent to guess what the tool actually does.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 and no additional param detail is needed.

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 identifies 'CustomBuild log names' as the subject, which is more specific than the tool name alone and separates it from siblings like cb_state and cb_options. However, it lacks a verb, so it never explicitly states whether the tool lists, returns, or otherwise manipulates those log names.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call cb_logs, what information it provides, or how it differs from nearby CustomBuild tools such as cb_updates or cb_actions. An agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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