get_task_log_summary

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool returns only a limited portion of the full log (mostly test log ingestion messages) and directs users to the detailed version for complete logs. No contradictions.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, limitation, alternative, and data source. No redundant words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and comprehensive parameter schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, its limitations, when to use the sibling, and where to get the input. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond the schema, though it reiterates the source of task_id. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a truncated view of task logs via GraphQL, specifies it returns log metadata and filtered error/failure messages, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_task_log_detailed for complete logs. The verb 'get' and resource 'task_log_summary' are specific.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance (truncated view, error analysis) and when-not-to-use (for complete logs, use get_task_log_detailed). It also gives a concrete tip: 'Use task_id from get_patch_failed_jobs results.'

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