analyze_build_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions analyzing and extracting, hinting at a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, handling of successful builds, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action and focus. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the core function but lacks crucial context due to missing annotations and lack of an output schema. It does not explain what the extracted errors/warnings look like, how edge cases (e.g., successful builds) are handled, or any prerequisites. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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% for both parameters (buildId and project), so the schema already documents their purpose. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, keeping the baseline at 3.

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 uses specific verbs 'analyze' and 'extract' with a clear resource ('failed build') and outcome ('errors, warnings, and issues from logs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_build_logs which simply retrieve logs.

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 'failed build' implies the tool is intended for builds that have failed, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use it over sibling tools like get_build_logs or analyze_test_failures. Context is implied but not directly stated.

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