Get NodeJS build logs

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: polling semantics tied to build state, incremental fetching via 'from_line', and the ANSI escape sequence caveat. This is useful operational context an agent would not otherwise know.

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 compact, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: the retrieval action, the polling pattern, and the ANSI warning. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 read-only log retrieval tool with annotations already covering safety, the description covers the key operational needs: how to stream logs incrementally, when to poll, and what content to expect. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the mention of a returned 'lines' count, though exact response fields are not described.

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 real value by explaining the intended use of 'from_line' as incremental polling using the previously returned line count, which is more meaningful than the schema's 'Line from which to start retrieving logs'. Other parameters are adequately covered by the schema.

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 a specific action ('Retrieve logs') and resource ('a specific Node.js build process'), which distinguishes it from list-type siblings like hosting_listNodeJSBuildsV1. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete guidance on when and how to use the tool: poll repeatedly while the build state is 'running', and pass the previously returned 'lines' count as 'from_line' to fetch only new output. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the contextual usage is clear and practical.

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