run_deep_dive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the analysis structure (job waterfall, queue vs execution), comparison against recent medians, regression naming, failing test detection, and the token requirement for log tails. It gives a concrete picture of what happens and what is needed.

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 dense but efficient, leading with the core purpose and then detailing key behaviors. Semicolons compress a lot of useful information without redundant 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 complex diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: what triggers use, what analysis is performed, how failures are surfaced, and the auth-sensitive log tail behavior. Nothing essential appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the schema already defines repo, run, and log_tail. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning that log tail inclusion requires a token, which is already noted in the schema. 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 names a specific verb and resource: deep-diving a single workflow run to diagnose slowness or failure. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling pr_deep_dive by focusing on workflow runs rather than PRs, and from repo-level analysis tools.

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 frames when to use the tool: when investigating one workflow run's performance or failure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unmistakable, especially alongside sibling names like pr_deep_dive and analyze_repo.

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