get_failed_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool returns jobs with 'conclusion=failure' and lists the fields returned (name, databaseId, url). However, it does not mention whether it's read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no failed jobs exist. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by input format and output summary. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, inputs, and outputs. It lacks error handling or pagination details, but for a list-failed-jobs tool, this is largely sufficient.

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 description adds value beyond the input schema by showing the expected format for 'repo' ('owner/repo') and clarifying 'runId' as a number from the check URL. Schema coverage is only 50% (runId has a description, repo does not), so the description compensates partially.

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 states the specific action: 'List only failed jobs for a workflow run.' It clearly identifies the resource (failed jobs) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_job_logs_tail' or 'summarize_pr_failure' that have different purposes.

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 the expected input format but does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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