Read Build Log

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: mode semantics, grep overload behavior, context limits, max matches, noise filtering, and the direct_log_url optimization that skips metadata fetching. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded summary followed by a concise Arg list. Each parameter line earns its place by explaining defaults, limits, or behavior. For a tool with 13 parameters, it is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 the tool's complexity (13 params, 0% schema coverage) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation details: parameter meanings, defaults, modes, overrides, and alternate input methods. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by documenting all 13 parameters with defaults, allowed ranges, mode interpretations, and interaction rules (e.g., start_line overrides mode, grep overrides mode). This is far beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verbs and identifies the resource (build logs), while the mention of grep and error summary differentiates it from sibling tools like tail_build_log or stream_build_console.

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 provides clear context for usage by explaining modes, parameter overrides, and the direct_log_url shortcut from prior calls. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit when-not/alternatives guidance.

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