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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: single-call summary return, and immediate failed-step log tail on failure. It does not mention timeout behavior or authentication requirements, but the essential behavioral traits are covered well beyond what the input schema conveys.

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 three sentences, efficient and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function, the second details the return behavior, and the third shows the manual cycle it replaces. No filler or redundancy.

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?

While there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a strong overview of inputs, behavior, and outputs, including failure handling. It does not specify timeout outcomes, but the timeout_ms parameter in the schema partially addresses that. Overall, it gives an agent sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter context (e.g., 'current or given commit' aligns with ref, 'local git repository' aligns with cwd), but it does not meaningfully enhance the schema's already-complete parameter documentation.

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 waits for GitHub Actions CI completion and returns a summary (ok/conclusion/url), with failed-step logs on failure. It uses a specific verb ('Чекає' – waits) and identifies the resource and scope (current/given commit in local git repo), making the purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools.

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 frames the tool as a replacement for the manual 'push -> sleep -> gh run list -> gh run view --log-failed' cycle, clearly indicating when to use it. It provides a concrete alternative scenario and positions this tool as the streamlined single-call solution.

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