get_build_step_log

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses it calls an undocumented endpoint and returns text/plain. No side effects mentioned; read operation implied.

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?

Six sentences covering purpose, background, usage, parameters, and return value. No fluff, well-organized.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and plain text output, description is complete. Includes endpoint details and parameter origin.

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?

No schema descriptions, but description adds crucial semantics for step_id: 'the `_id` field of any entry in the `buildActions` array returned by `get_build_status`, or equivalently the last path segment of that step's `logUrl`.' build_id is simply described as 'The build identifier'.

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?

Clearly states 'Get the raw log output for a specific build step on Codemagic.' Differentiates from siblings like get_build_status and get_artifact by specifying step-level 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?

Explicitly recommends using it 'to diagnose failed builds without manual dashboard access.' Does not mention when not to use, but context is clear.

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