get_job_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this returns a log and that tailing is supported, but omits permissions, whether jobs must be finished, and whether the log is server-truncated. Adequate but with clear gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the parenthetical adds only useful context.

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 no output schema, the description should convey more about the return shape (e.g., full vs tailed log, ordering, size). It names the resource but leaves return-value expectations largely to inference.

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 100%, so job_id, project_id, and tail_lines are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, matching the baseline for fully-covered parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the terminal output log of a build/test job'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_job (metadata) and get_job_artifact_file (artifacts). It does not name a sibling outright, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(supports tailing to diagnose test failures)' implies a usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for log inspection rather than job metadata.

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