get_run_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'GitHub returns a redirect to a zip file,' which adds useful context about the output format (a redirect URL to a zip). However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about the redirect. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient for an agent 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and output format but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details like auth or errors, and doesn't leverage sibling context. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (owner, repo, run_id) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get logs URL for a workflow run.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('logs URL'), and target ('workflow run'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_run' or 'list_runs' beyond mentioning logs, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools such as 'get_run' (which might include logs) or 'list_artifacts' (which could contain log files). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage.

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