OBS Build Log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default-transport behavior (nostream form) and the server-vs-alias sourcing model, but says nothing about truncation, pagination, or failure modes.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the source options and default are stated compactly. It is efficient, though very short given the tool's parameter surface.

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?

With ten parameters, only half documented, no output schema, and the required identifiers unexplained, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent has little basis for choosing between server and api_alias or for interpreting the returned log.

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 only 50%, and the four required parameters (project, package, repository, arch) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description only hints at the server/api_alias relationship, leaving most of the ten parameters unexplained.

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 (fetch) and resource (build log) and names the source options (configured OBS server vs explicit API alias). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like sailfish_obs_results or sailfish_obs_watch, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to the many sibling tools. The only guidance offered is an implementation default ('defaults to the API nostream form'), which is not selection criteria.

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