getPipelineStepLogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Get logs,' such as response format, potential size, or pagination. It is consistent with the annotations but does not go beyond them.

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 short sentence that states the core action immediately. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessarily complex structure.

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 simple read-only tool with three fully documented required parameters, this description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the return format or mention log size or pagination, but given the annotations and schema coverage, these are not critical gaps.

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%, with owner, repo, and job_id each documented in the schema. The description adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The parenthetical '(step)' hints at how job_id relates to a step, but this is minor and somewhat ambiguous.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get logs of a CI job (step).' This makes the tool's function clear and distinguishes it from siblings like getPipelineStep, which likely returns step metadata rather than logs. The parenthetical '(step)' introduces slight ambiguity around whether the target is a job or step, but the overall intent is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getPipelineStep, getPipelineRun, or listPipelineRuns. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or instructions on how to obtain a valid job_id, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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