get_build_logs

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

Discloses key actions: resolve, download, save, return summary. But with no annotations, it misses details on side effects (temp file lifecycle), permissions, or rate limits. The mention of 'temporary local directory' hints at cleanup but is ambiguous.

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 conveying multiple aspects efficiently. Could be broken into two for clarity, but no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite clear purpose, the description omits parameter semantics and return format details. For a tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, it is insufficiently complete.

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?

Parameters (buildRunId, workflowId, buildNumber, buildSelector, maxCharacters) are undocumented in schema and description. The description adds zero information about how to specify the build or limit output, leaving the agent to guess.

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 resolves a build, downloads log artifacts, saves locally, and returns a summary with failures and paths. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like materialize_build_logs or get_failed_tests.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for local log inspection but lacks prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or comparisons to siblings.

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