Get exact workflow run logs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: stable job-ID order, never uses ZIP endpoint, supports byte cap/tail/markers, sha256 fingerprinting, and explicitly excludes mutation/dispatch operations. This goes well beyond annotation coverage.

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 dense single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Read-only: stream bounded log evidence...') and every sentence adds value (method, exclusions, selection modes, fingerprinting). No wasted words—exemplary conciseness for a complex tool.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides complete context: it explains the enumeration method, stable ordering, selection bounds (byte cap/tail/markers), and explicitly lists unsupported operations. It is sufficient for an agent to understand scope and behavior without ambiguity.

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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minimal extra parameter meaning, though it confirms markers are literal and mentions 'UTF-8 byte cap' aligning with max_bytes. Since schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate; description doesn't significantly extend parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool 'streams bounded log evidence for one exact GitHub Actions workflow run attempt' by enumerating jobs and reading plaintext job-log endpoints. It explicitly differentiates from alternatives by noting the attempt is mandatory and never replaced, and it excludes operations like rerun/cancel/delete, distinguishing it from gh_get_failed_run_logs and gh_get_job_logs.

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 implies usage context: read-only, exact attempt, bounded output, and explicitly states what it does not do (no regex, shell, rerun, etc.). It clarifies the attempt is never silently replaced. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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