get_build_logs

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

The description implies a read-only operation without destructive actions, but fails to disclose any specific behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response size. With no annotations, some behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely concise at 8 words, with no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the core action and directly follows with the purpose.

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 lacks details on return value format or pagination behavior, and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like get_release_logs or get_build. Given no output schema, more contextual information is needed for effective use.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds useful guidance for the logId parameter ('omit to get log list first'), which provides semantic value beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool retrieves build logs and indicates its utility for analyzing errors. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_build or get_release_logs, which are related but different resources.

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 implicitly suggests use for analyzing build errors and failures, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_build_errors or get_build. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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