Read failed workflow logs

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

The description explicitly states the tool never reruns, cancels, deletes, or dispatches workflows and never requests input, which goes beyond the annotations. It also discloses bounded output with truncation metadata and fingerprinting, providing meaningful behavioral context.

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 the read-only nature and core function, with no wasted words. Every clause adds value.

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 full schema coverage, meaningful annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently completes the picture. It conveys safety, scope, boundedness, and return characteristics without redundancy.

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters with full coverage, so the description adds little parameter-specific detail. The mention of 'bounded' and 'exact run attempt' aligns with the max_bytes and attempt parameters but does not explain them beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('return') and resource ('bounded failed-step log text for one exact GitHub Actions run attempt'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like gh_get_run_logs and gh_get_job_logs. It also includes distinctive scope details such as truncation metadata and SHA-256 fingerprint.

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 clearly implies its use case: retrieving bounded failed-step log text from a specific run attempt. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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