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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail about retrieving jobs, failed steps, and the end of a failed job's log, but it omits permission requirements, pagination behavior, and log truncation specifics. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two tight sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval modes and ending with a concrete use case. There is no wasted text, though the opening noun phrase is slightly less actionable than a verb-led phrasing would be.

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?

The description is sufficient to understand what the tool returns, including jobs, failed steps, and log tail, but the overlap with gh_actions_run and the undocumented limit parameter leave meaningful gaps for correct invocation. The annotations cover the safety profile, so those aspects are not missing.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate more. It does clarify that branch and workflow act as filters and that run_id selects a single run with detailed output, but the limit parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 identifies the resource and two retrieval modes (recent runs with filters vs. a single run via run_id). However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a specific verb and does not differentiate this tool from the sibling gh_actions_run, whose purpose appears to overlap with the single-run mode.

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?

It gives one concrete use case: when a build or deploy workflow fails. But it does not explain when to use the list mode versus run_id mode, nor when gh_actions_run would be the better choice, and it provides no explicit exclusions.

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