github_get_failing_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes beyond the implied job data, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and target, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter meanings, return values, error handling, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation by an AI agent in this context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't explain any parameters, such as what 'repo_owner' or 'include_logs' mean in context, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and the target ('about failing jobs in a PR'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'github_get_pr_checks' or 'github_get_pr_status', which might also provide related PR status information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a PR number), exclusions, or how it differs from similar sibling tools like 'github_get_pr_checks', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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