Get Build Log

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered. The description usefully discloses that output is truncated to the last N lines rather than the full log, which is behavioral context beyond the annotation. Beyond that it adds nothing about paging back further or log availability timing.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the return behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 log retrieval tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scoping, and truncation behavior adequately; the absence of an output schema means return format is only lightly described, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so all four parameters including tail, project, buildtarget, and build_number are documented in the schema. The description's 'last N lines' wording reinforces the tail parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (build log) scoped to a specific build, and clarifies the return shape (last N lines) for failure investigation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling get_build, which returns build metadata rather than the log, but the log-vs-build distinction is reasonably implied.

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 phrase 'to help investigate failures' implies the intended scenario (debugging a failing build), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_build or list_builds, and no exclusions offered, leaving usage to inference.

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