List workflow jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: platform-dependent output (Gitea returns timestamps and steps, Forgejo returns neither) and the meaning of a 404 (Actions disabled, or pre-16 Forgejo lacking a jobs endpoint). The output-shape sentence ('translation onto one shape, outcome in `status`') is slightly vague but still tells the agent where to look for a result.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by workflow routing, output caveats, and error semantics — a sensible order with little waste. Some sentences are dense (platform differences packed into one line), but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so at a high level (translated shape, `status`, platform-variant fields) plus error interpretation. Only the concrete field list of the returned jobs is left implicit.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including run_id's link to list_workflow_runs. The description restates the owner/repo/run_id triple but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource scoped to a single workflow run, and names the run identifier path (owner/repo/run_id). It explicitly positions itself against siblings list_workflow_runs (upstream) and get_job_log (downstream), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'the step between a failed run and reading the log of the job that failed it' plus 'Each job's id is what get_job_log takes' gives a concrete when-to-use and handoff chain. There is no explicit when-not-to-use case, which keeps it short of a 5.

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