search_build_console

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so safety is implied. Description adds 'incrementally' but does not elaborate on pagination, effect on system, or auth requirements. Minimal 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 is concise but at the expense of missing crucial details. Could be expanded to include parameter hints or behavior without being overly long.

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 7 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination, or parameter constraints, making it nearly unusable without prior knowledge.

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 description provides no explanations for any of the 7 parameters (e.g., fullname, query, max_bytes). Agents would have to infer or guess parameter meanings, severely hindering 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'build console output' with 'matching excerpts'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_build_console_chunk' and 'get_build_failure_excerpt' by indicating it searches, but 'incrementally' is somewhat vague.

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?

Implied usage for searching text in console output. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like fetching full chunks or tailing. Context signals from sibling names provide some differentiation but description lacks direct guidance.

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