github_get_run_logs

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

The description notes that it returns a redirect URL, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose other behaviors such as authentication requirements or error handling.

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 concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. No unnecessary information is included.

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 tool is simple and the description covers the purpose and all parameters. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed in the description. However, it lacks context on when to use it or any prerequisites, which prevents a higher score.

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 Args list provides basic descriptions for each parameter, but they largely restate the parameter names (e.g., 'owner: Repository owner'). The description adds some value for session_name ('GitHub session to use'), which is not self-evident from the schema.

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 'Get the download URL for workflow run logs' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like github_get_workflow_run or github_list_workflow_runs.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose makes it clear it's for retrieving logs. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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