Get job log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns the tail by default, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions present.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The use of an em dash and direct language makes it efficient and front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 tool with good annotations and no output schema, this description covers purpose and key behavior (tail default). It lacks explicit mention of the response format (e.g., plain text), but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 67%, with descriptions for project_id and tail_chars. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it mentions tail behavior but that is already captured in the tail_chars schema. It does not compensate for the undocumented job_id.

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 it downloads the trace/log of a CI job, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_job_artifact (which fetches artifacts) and list_jobs (which lists jobs).

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 'fastest way to find out why a pipeline failed' implies a clear use case, but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools or exclusion conditions.

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