Diagnose Build Failure

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

While annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive, the description adds valuable context about the composite behavior (merging failure info with log grep) and the brief mode's omission of playbooks/log_context/full task details. It does not over-explain, and no contradictions exist.

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 and well-structured, front-loading the core value proposition followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence contributes to understanding, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 an output schema exists and annotations convey safety, the description covers the main return content and behavior modes well. It could briefly mention handling of errors or when to prefer batch_diagnose for multiple builds, but these are minor gaps in an otherwise complete context.

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 has zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: uuid, tenant, url (as alternative to uuid+tenant), and brief (with effect on response size). This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment needed for schema-sparse tools.

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 identifies the tool as a one-call failure diagnosis combining failure classification with log context. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_build_failures and get_build_log, making its purpose and scope 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?

It explicitly says 'Use this instead of calling get_build_failures + get_build_log separately,' providing direct guidance on choosing this over alternatives. The mention of the 'brief' mode for smaller responses also helps users pick the right option based on needs.

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