gh_watch_run

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

Annotations (readOnly, idempotent) are present and consistent. The description adds context about the polling behavior and the timeout, which is not covered by annotations, enhancing transparency about what the tool does.

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 concise sentence that clearly conveys the core functionality without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the basic behavior but omits details about the return value or what happens on timeout vs. completion. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not complete; a mention of the returned run status would improve it.

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 schema provides only parameter names without descriptions, and the description does not explain any parameters. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not define 'interval', 'exit_status', or 'timeout_seconds' meaning.

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 action: 'Poll a GitHub Actions workflow run until completion or timeout.' It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like gh_get_run by indicating it waits for completion rather than fetching a single snapshot.

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 when waiting for a run to finish, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as when a simple status check suffices.

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