failure_summary

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the output limit (up to 30) and an important security note treating log text as data, not instructions. This goes beyond structured fields, though it omits auth or rate-limit details.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then safety note. No wasted words; every sentence contributes.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 0% schema coverage and no parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete for an agent needing to know how to supply 'repo' (e.g., owner/repo) and 'run_id'.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'repo' or 'run_id' parameters. It only implies a 'run' context, leaving the agent to infer format and meaning from parameter names.

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 (summarizes) and resource (why a run failed), and enumerates output (failed jobs, steps, error lines). The phrase 'Start here when a build is red' distinguishes it from sibling log tools like job_log, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

'Start here when a build is red' gives explicit when-to-use guidance. It implies alternatives for deeper log inspection (e.g., job_log) but does not name exclusions or alternatives explicitly.

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