构建日志

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. However, the description adds no extra behavior: it doesn't mention pagination details, ordering of logs, or any potential limits. The description is minimal and fails to disclose that pagination may require multiple calls or that logs might be truncated. It does not conflict with annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them.

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 extremely concise, one short phrase. Every word is informative. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is zero waste. Given the brevity, it earns full marks for conciseness.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations supplying behavioral details, the description is clearly incomplete. It only conveys that logs are read page by page, but does not cover key context like the meaning of projectId/jobId, pagination parameters (limit/offset), or the format of the response. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional inference.

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%, meaning the plain schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description mentions '分页' (pagination) but not the specific parameters 'limit' and 'offset' that implement it, nor 'projectId' and 'jobId' which identify which logs to fetch. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation; an agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient, especially since 'jobId' and 'projectId' are not self-explanatory in context.

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 '分页读取构建日志' clearly states the action (page-read) and the specific resource (build logs). Although it's brief, it directly indicates what the tool does distinguishably from sibling tools like cocos_build_status (which checks build status) and cocos_build_list (which lists builds). It lacks explicit differentiation, but the verb and resource combination is sufficient.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cocos_build_status or cocos_build_list. The description only implies that it's for reading logs, but does not specify scenarios like 'when you need to debug a failed build' or exclude cases where other tools are appropriate. For an agent with many sibling tools, this is a clear gap.

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