Get Failed Job Logs Tool

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description discloses substantial behavior beyond that: ANSI escapes and timestamps are stripped, at most 5 failed jobs are fetched, total text is capped at 256 KiB, and the truncated / failed_jobs_omitted / jobs_truncated flags indicate exactly when and why output was cut, including the 300-job examination ceiling.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries information (line trimming, caps, truncation flags). The dense backtick-quoted field names make it slightly more mechanical than a clean prose statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present and readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: scope (failed/timed-out jobs only), payload limits, and the meaning of the truncation markers. No gap remains for a correctly-callable 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so repo, owner, run_id, and tail_lines are already documented in the schema with defaults and the max-1000 bound. The description reinforces tail_lines semantics ('last tail_lines lines') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get the end of the log of each failed job in a GitHub Actions run' — narrowing scope to failed/timed-out jobs within a run. That scope is distinctive enough that an agent can separate it from get_workflow_run_tool (run metadata) or rerun_failed_jobs_tool (mutation) 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternative named (e.g. when to prefer get_workflow_run_tool first, or rerun_failed_jobs_tool after). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'failed job', so the agent must infer the diagnostic context.

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