Parse a build log

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds value by specifying supported log types and that output includes diagnostics, causes, and fixes, which is consistent and helpful beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences: first defines purpose and supported formats, second gives usage context. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (parsing multiple build log formats into structured output), the description fully covers supported sources, output nature, and usage context. The presence of an output schema obviates the need to detail 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?

With 100% schema coverage, both parameters are described. The description adds the crucial detail that exactly one of logPath/logText should be provided, clarifying the mutual exclusivity beyond the schema's required field count.

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 parses native build logs (xcodebuild, Gradle, CocoaPods, Metro) into structured diagnostics with causes and fixes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doctor or evaluate_js by specifying the exact input and output.

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 advises using on logs from terminals, CI, or from get_build_status, providing clear context. Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient for the intended use case.

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