get_ci_build_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by specifying what it returns ('detailed error messages with stack traces', 'test failures, assertion errors'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format/structure of the returned data, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but data-rich operation.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and follow with specific details. Every word earns its place by adding clarity about what the tool retrieves, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or system constraints. For a read-only tool with good schema coverage, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'build_url' with examples. The description adds value by clarifying the parameter's purpose ('from a specific CI build URL') and implying it accepts various URL formats or IDs, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. With only one parameter, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description complements the schema adequately.

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 specific action ('Get detailed error messages with stack traces') and resource ('from a specific CI build URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_gerrit_cl_bot_errors or get_gerrit_cl_status by focusing on CI build errors rather than Gerrit CL issues. It specifies the exact content returned: 'actual test failures, assertion errors, and complete stack traces'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need detailed error information from a CI build. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the specificity of 'CI build URL' and the sibling tool list (which includes Gerrit-focused error tools) imply it's for CI builds rather than Gerrit CLs or other contexts.

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