analyze_run_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: large inputs (~200-400KB) and a fidelity requirement that raw logs be passed rather than a summarized excerpt. It stops short of stating whether output is truncated or paginated, but overall the operational hazards are covered.

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 tight sentences; the detection capabilities and the hard prerequisite are front-loaded, and no sentence restates the name or title.

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?

Prerequisites, input size, input fidelity, and sibling alternatives are all present, and an output schema exists so return-shape explanation is unnecessary. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance for the non-log argument.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, but it names only one behavior — that the primary input must be raw, unsummarized logs. The second parameter (the workflow filename/identifier implied by the prerequisite) is never mentioned, and no parameter is matched by name, leaving the agent to infer the mapping.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Analyze CI/CD audit logs") plus the concrete outcomes it detects (pipeline and test failures). It also names the two sibling analysis tools (analyze_cicd_config, analyze_cicd_workflow_yaml) so the agent can route on content type rather than guess.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition and tool chain ("Requires get_workflow_run_logs or get_workflow_run_jobs first") and names the alternatives for adjacent tasks. An agent knows both when to call this and what to call before it.

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