Stream Build Console

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it uses WebSocket, only works for running builds, requires the 'console' extra package, and has configurable lines/timeout limits. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the added operational constraints are a plus, though error/stream-end behavior is not described.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose, followed by clear usage constraints and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

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?

The description covers all key parameters, the critical running-build constraint, the alternative tool, and installation requirements. It does not explicitly explain streaming semantics or error handling when the build completes mid-stream, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description includes a full 'Args' section explaining each parameter, its default, and constraints (e.g., 'lines: Lines to return from end (default 100, max 500)'). This fully compensates 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read live console output from a RUNNING build via WebSocket.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tail_build_log by emphasizing the running-build scope and by naming the alternative 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'For RUNNING builds only. For completed builds, use tail_build_log.' It also mentions the installation prerequisite, helping the agent decide if the tool is available.

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