get_configure_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add behavioral value beyond the schema: it discloses the offset/limit pagination mechanism, the 34 KB default bound, and the 'Set to 0 for no limit' behavior. However, it stays silent on invalid build IDs, whether command and output are returned together, and error/truncation handling.

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 purpose sentence followed by a compact three-bullet Args section; information is front-loaded and every line earns its place. It slightly repeats default values already present in the schema, but that redundancy is offset by the added '34 KB' interpretation and the '0 = no limit' clarification.

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 low-complexity three-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and all parameter semantics including pagination. The main gaps are the absence of usage-routing context and edge-case behavior, both minor given the simple call surface and the output schema covering return values.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. All three parameters receive meaningful semantics: build_id ('The CDash build ID'), output_offset ('Character offset into the configure output'), and output_limit ('Maximum characters of output to return... Set to 0 for no limit'). This adds far more than the bare integer types and defaults in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair — 'View CMake configure command and output' — scoped to a build via build_id. This targets the configure step's command and output, which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_build_details, get_failing_tests, or get_build_errors, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never references a sibling, states an exclusion, or explains how it differs from get_build_details or get_build_update. The Args block documents parameters only; it does not convey when an agent should reach for this tool.

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