get_build_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: output is truncated to MCP_MAX_LOG_BYTES, pagination continues via the returned next_start, and invalid/incomplete pagination metadata is refused rather than guessed. It omits auth requirements and what happens for a nonexistent build or job.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then truncation, then continuation, then alias/error behavior. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description still covers the return shape (truncated log plus next_start) and the continuation loop, plus an error-refusal policy. It stops short of describing failure modes like missing jobs/builds or permission requirements, which an agent might need.

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 compensate, and it documents two of three parameters meaningfully: build_number accepts a number or an alias such as lastBuild, and start is the continuation cursor fed by next_start. Only job_name is left to inference, and it is self-evident from the name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read a build's console output.' This implicitly separates it from the sibling get_build_info (metadata) by naming the console output, but it never explicitly names or contrasts any sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It supplies one usage context implicitly: 'which is how a running build is followed,' telling the agent this tool is the way to tail a live build. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. get_build_info for status), so guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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