get_build_logs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description matches. It adds behavioral details: 'by default returns logs for failed steps only' and 'Always returns the step list with statuses first', informing the agent about the response structure beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second explains default behavior and use case, third covers the optional parameter and return format. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and low complexity, the description adequately covers return behavior (step list first) and the two scenarios. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it, though more explicit output structure details could improve it.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it restates the schema's explanation for step_name very closely. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Fetch logs for a Codemagic build', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_build' and 'get_test_results' by focusing on logs and specifying the default scope (failed steps).

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 states the primary use case ('diagnosing why a build failed') and explains how to fetch logs for a specific step using step_name. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is sufficiently clear.

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