get_build_failure_excerpt

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds 'incremental log scanning' which suggests behavior but does not detail side effects, performance, or prerequisites. For a read-only tool, this adds modest value beyond 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?

Single sentence that is direct and free of fluff. Every word adds value; no redundancy. Ideal length for a utility tool.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what fields are returned, how parameters interact, or the nature of the output. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (fullname, number, max_bytes, max_excerpts). The agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action (get) and resource (focused failure excerpts and failing tests) with a method (incremental log scanning). It distinguishes from siblings like get_build_console_chunk and get_build_test_report, though 'failure excerpts' could be more precise.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies use for fetching failure details from logs, but does not differentiate from siblings like search_build_console or get_build_console_tail. An agent would lack context for tool selection.

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