get_build_logs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read operation and mentions streaming behavior for `follow`. However, it lacks details on error handling, log availability limits, or whether returning 'available output' means non-blocking.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences that add unique value. No filler words, and each sentence provides essential information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the required `name` parameter and the optional `cluster`/`namespace`, which are needed for correct invocation. The description is too brief for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

Only the `follow` parameter is described in the description (via usage tip). The required `name` parameter and optional `cluster`/`namespace` are not explained. With 0% schema coverage, this leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 specifies the action ('Retrieve logs') and the resource ('a Build'), making it distinct from sibling tools like `get_build` which returns build details. No ambiguity.

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 provides a usage tip for `follow=True` but does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., `get_build` for metadata). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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