build_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is limited to the last 100 lines by default and that the latest build is used when buildNumber is omitted, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or response format.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 read-only tool with fully described schema, the description is largely complete. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the self-explanatory 'console output', though the description could be more complete by noting potential error scenarios or the need for prior authentication via sibling login tools.

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 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. The mention of 'last 100 lines' and 'latest build' mirrors the schema's lines default and optional buildNumber, but does not enrich the semantic understanding.

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 'Get' and the resource 'console output', with a specific scope of 'specific build or the latest build'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like build_status and build_history, which serve distinct purposes.

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 implies use when console output is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_status or job_details. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so guidance is only implicit.

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