github_get_workflow_run_logs

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

No annotations are present, and the description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) rather than behavioral traits like side effects, read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits. The lack of transparency forces the agent to guess the tool's behavior.

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 short but includes unnecessary routing path details (/api/tools/invoke) that are not relevant for selection or invocation. While somewhat focused, it could be more concise by omitting implementation specifics and focusing on function.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description should at least indicate what identifier is needed (e.g., workflow run ID) and what the logs represent. It fails to provide essential context, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is a tautology. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaningful explanation of what fields the JSON should contain, leaving the agent unable to construct valid input.

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 merely restates the tool name ('Github connector operation get_workflow_run_logs') without specifying what the tool does beyond its naming. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like github_get_workflow_run or github_list_workflow_runs, leaving the agent to infer purpose solely from the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing a workflow run ID). The description omits context about the typical workflow of listing runs then fetching logs, which is critical for correct usage.

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