build.collect_build_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read, but the description doesn't disclose return shape, whether logs persist after listing, ordering, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no wasted words; every element (verb, resource, scope qualifier) earns its place. It is front-loaded and scannable, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming verbose.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states the resource and scope. However, it doesn't clarify what the returned log artifacts contain, when logs are available, or how this differs from the similarly named sibling collectors, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description's 'emitted by this MCP server' qualifier adds useful scoping meaning beyond the empty 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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('build log artifacts emitted by this MCP server'). The qualifier 'emitted by this MCP server' helps distinguish it from sibling log-collection tools like device.pull_logs and ios.collect_logs, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus similar siblings such as ci.collect_artifact_manifest, device.pull_logs, or verify.collect_evidence. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and minimal description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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