gh_watch_run

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important behavioral trait that this is a blocking call that waits for completion, which is crucial for an agent to understand. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide technical flag details. No wasted words.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered. Annotations cover safety. However, the description leaves the optional parameters (interval, compact, exit_status) vague and does not address potential long blocking durations or failure behavior, which are relevant for a watching tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention the flags --interval, --compact, and --exit-status, which maps to the optional parameters, but it does not explain their meaning or usage. The required params (owner, repo, run_id) are left entirely to their names. This is partial but insufficient compensation.

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 a specific action ('Watch a GitHub Actions workflow run until completion') with a distinct resource ('workflow run') and emphasizes the blocking behavior. This differentiates it from sibling tools like gh_get_run which merely fetches run details without waiting.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to wait for a run to finish. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the blocking call context and sibling list make the intended usage clear.

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