Stream Build Console

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it connects to a WebSocket, captures output for a timeout period, returns tail behavior, and requires an optional dependency. No contradictions.

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 first sentence and organized Args. However, it repeats some parameter info (e.g., timeout and lines appear in both the prose and Args), which slightly reduces 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?

Given 5 parameters (none required), an output schema exists, and the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and dependencies. It could mention the output format briefly, but the output schema mitigates this need.

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%, but the description provides a full Args section explaining each parameter (uuid, tenant, url, lines, timeout) with defaults and max values, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with 'Read live console output from a RUNNING build,' clearly stating the verb (read) and resource (console output from a running build). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like tail_build_log and get_build_log, which are for completed builds.

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 explicitly states 'This tool is for RUNNING builds only. For completed builds, use tail_build_log or get_build_log instead.' This provides clear when-to-use and alternative tools.

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