get_vps_build_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint: the log is only available while building or shortly after. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or what 'recently built' means, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the resource and availability scope, then adds the diagnostic purpose. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only log fetch with no output schema, the description conveys what log is returned, when it is available, and why an agent might call it. It leaves the return value shape unstated, but the simplicity of the tool and the read-only/idempotent annotations make invocation straightforward.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description should clarify the vps_id parameter, but it only refers generically to 'a VPS', which adds little beyond the schema's property name and title. It does not mention requiredness, format, or how to obtain a valid vps_id, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the tool as returning a VPS's provisioning/build log and adds the key qualifier that it applies to in-progress or recently completed builds. It is specific enough to be understood against sibling get_* tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools.

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 phrase 'still building, or was recently built' gives a concrete condition for when the log exists and is relevant, and 'diagnosing a stuck/failed deploy' states a clear use case. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended context is clear.

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