get_ci_logs

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool returns logs, defaults to failure status, and limits lines. It doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, but overall it's transparent about what the tool does.

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 structured with a main sentence, bullet points for parameters, and a return format. It is concise without unnecessary words, though the owner and repo parameters could be briefly explained.

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 7 parameters (0 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key inputs and output. It explains defaults and mutual exclusivity, making it usable, though owner and repo are not fully described.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the mutual exclusivity of branch and run_id, and describing filters like job_name, status, max_lines. It compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though owner/repo are less explained.

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 retrieves CI workflow logs for debugging failed jobs. It specifies the resource ('CI workflow logs') and the action ('Get'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_ci_status by focusing on logs.

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 description explicitly says to provide either branch or run_id (not both), and lists optional filters with their defaults. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't directly compare to alternatives.

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