get_build_logs

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose potential rate limits, response size, or pagination behavior. It mentions returning failure reasons, which is helpful, but lacks explicit safety or performance cues.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the core function, second provides usage guidance. No superfluous words or repetition. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema, the description conveys the nature of the output ('what ran and why it failed'). It differentiates from siblings (build vs runtime logs). However, it does not specify response format or pagination behavior, which are common for list tools.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond what is already provided (e.g., idOrUrl, limit, since, until are already explained). Baseline 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 BUILD logs of a deployment, specifying it returns 'what ran during the build and why it failed,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_deployment (deployment metadata), get_runtime_logs (runtime logs), and get_deployment_events.

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 explicitly advises to 'Use this first when a deployment is in ERROR state,' providing clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the advisory use case is strong and actionable.

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