Append Markdown output to GitHub Actions step summary. Falls back to a local file when summary is not accessible.
[workspace write][risk:write] Append Markdown to GitHub Actions step summary or a workspace fallback file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markdown | No | ||
| sourcePath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does include inline tags '[workspace write]' and '[risk:write]' and the verb 'Append', signaling it's a non-destructive write operation with workspace side effects. However, it omits details about the fallback file's path, environment detection, or error conditions, so transparency is only partial.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with behavioral risk tags, followed by a clear action and target. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to the core meaning. It is concise without sacrificing essential scope.
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?
For a write tool with two optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of sourcePath, when the fallback file is used, or how the agent should parameterize the call. The lack of parameter details and behavioral edge cases leaves too many gaps for safe 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'markdown' is the content to append, but 'sourcePath' is only vaguely tied to the workspace fallback file, with no explicit mapping or usage guidance. The description fails to explain either parameter clearly, leaving the agent to infer too much.
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 uses a specific verb 'Append' and names a concrete resource: 'GitHub Actions step summary or a workspace fallback file.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ci.comment_pr and ci.create_github_annotations, which target different outputs. The purpose is immediately apparent.
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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention CI environments, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over, say, ci.comment_pr. The fallback file is mentioned but not as a decision criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.