Read Build Log

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) indicate safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral details like mode overrides, start_line/end_line interactions, grep overriding mode, and context for matches. This goes beyond annotations, though it could further disclose rate limits or error handling.

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 well-structured with a clear opening line followed by parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy with details like 'Do NOT use backslash-pipe', which could be more concise. Still, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter interactions, default behaviors, and special cases. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. It is nearly complete, though could mention maximum allowed request sizes or rate limits for such a powerful tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's purpose, default, and behavior. For example, it describes log_name's default and alternative usage, mode behaviors, lines meaning in each mode, grep pattern advice, and context limits. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 the tool's purpose: 'Read, search, and navigate build log files with grep, line ranges, and error summary.' It uses a specific verb (read, search, navigate) and identifies the resource (build log files), distinguishing it from siblings like 'stream_build_console' or 'tail_build_log' which likely focus on streaming or tailing.

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 explains how to use parameters and their interactions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browse_build_logs' or 'stream_build_console'. Usage is implied through parameter details, but no explicit when-not guidance is provided.

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