List workflow run jobs

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'one bounded page' (pagination behavior), 'exact run attempt' (scope of attempt), and explicit exclusions (logs, watching, dispatch). This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and limits.

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 'Read-only,' immediately convey the tool's safety and scope. Every clause adds information without redundancy or filler.

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 paginated list tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers key behaviors (bounded page, no logs, exact attempt, non-mutating). It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists, and it gives the agent enough to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., 'Exact run attempt; omit for the latest attempt'), yielding 100% schema coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'return one bounded page of jobs and step metadata' for a specific GitHub Actions run attempt. It identifies the resource (jobs/metadata) and scope (exact attempt), and distinguishes it from siblings like gh_list_runs, gh_watch_run, and gh_get_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 provides clear when-not guidance: it 'downloads no logs, performs no watching or workflow dispatch, and never modifies GitHub.' This implicitly tells the agent to use alternative tools for those concerns, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives (e.g., gh_get_run_logs, gh_watch_run), so it falls short of a 5.

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