Analyse failed Node.js build

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses that each call reruns the analysis, that analysis/solution can be null, and that a 429 is returned above the rate limit. It also explains the 422 state constraint. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 concise and every sentence earns its place: purpose, state constraint, fallback behavior, and rate-limit guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff or repetition of the title.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (analysis, solution), null behavior, error cases, and rate limits. It also names the fallback sibling tool. An agent can correctly decide when to call it, what to expect, and how to handle errors.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about what the analysis is based on, but it does not clarify the meaning or format of the parameters beyond the schema. The schema's username description ('username parameter') is tautological, and the description does not resolve that ambiguity, so it stays at the baseline.

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 specific verb ('Returns an AI analysis') and a specific resource ('why a build failed and how to fix it'), grounded in concrete inputs (build logs, project file list, package.json). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling log-fetching tools by emphasizing the AI analysis output and the fallback to 'Get NodeJS build logs'.

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 states when to use it (failed builds only), what happens otherwise (422), and what to do if the analysis is unavailable (read Get NodeJS build logs instead). It also gives operational guidance: call once per failed build, keep the result, and stay under the 5 calls/minute rate limit.

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