materialize_build_logs

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

The description outlines the process (resolve, download, extract, return paths) but omits side effects like temporary directory lifecycle and cleanup. With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentence covering the main action. It could be improved by front-loading the purpose and adding parameter hints, but it remains efficient without 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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential details like parameter purposes, output format, and prerequisites (e.g., build existence). It is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (buildRunId, workflowId, buildNumber, buildSelector). It only vaguely mentions 'resolve a build' without clarifying how parameters affect behavior.

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 and extracts text-like log artifacts, and returns file paths for investigation. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like get_build_logs by emphasizing materialization to local files.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_build_logs or cleanup_saved_logs. It mentions 'for grep or cat based investigation' but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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