Get a Depot CI run tree

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool only reports structure and status, does not explain failures, and returns node ids needed for drilling into logs/metrics. This is exactly the kind of limitation disclosure that helps an agent avoid misusing the result.

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?

Three tight paragraphs, each earning its place: first defines the output, second gives concrete usage and the flag, third states the limitation and routes to the correct alternative. No filler or repetition of annotations.

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 read-only tree tool with an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description supplies all required context: what the output looks like, which jobs/attempts to inspect, how to filter, what the tool does not do, and which sibling to call for root cause. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents both runId and failedOnly clearly. The description reinforces failedOnly's purpose ('cut a large matrix down to just the broken jobs') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Show one Depot CI run as its workflow -> job -> attempt tree' with node statuses and drill-in IDs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting this tool does not explain failures and that root cause belongs to depot_diagnose_ci_failure.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this to see the shape of a run'), how to use failedOnly for large matrices, and when not to use it ('does not explain failures') with a clear alternative call: depot_diagnose_ci_failure. It also tells the agent which attempt ids to pass to depot_get_ci_logs or depot_get_ci_metrics.

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