ci_get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden.me description does disclose meaningful behavior: it fetches logs and extracts specific error lines plus the tail. However, it does not describe the output format, whether raw logs are returned, auth requirements, or how the only_failed and tail_lines parameters affect behavior.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Fetch the job logs of a run') and then adds the useful processing detail in a compact clause. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It is enough for a default-parameter call with run_id, but it does not explain the output shape, parameter roles, or when repo/project_path are needed, leaving gaps for robust agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not define any parameter by name. It only hints at 'log tail' and 'error lines' which loosely map to tail_lines and only_failed, but run_id, repo, and project_path semantics are left entirely to inference from their schema titles.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Fetch the job logs of a run', plus the additional filtering/processing behavior of extracting Xcode/CocoaPods/Flutter error lines and a log tail. This distinguishes it from run-list and run-waiting siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 intended use case is implied: obtain job logs or errors for a CI run. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives such as ci_wait_for_run or ci_download_artifacts.

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