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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the result content (failures, timeouts, cancellations), which is useful, but says nothing about scope, whether run_id=0 spans all runs, pagination, or rate limits. The safety profile must be inferred from 'Show'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations. The meaning of run_id and the scope of the query are simply absent.

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%, and the description adds no information about 'repo' or 'run_id'. It does not explain that run_id defaults to 0 or what that default means (e.g., all runs), leaving both parameters semantically opaque in schema and prose alike.

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 ('Show') and resource ('unsuccessful jobs/steps') and enumerates the categories it covers (failures, timeouts, cancellations). It is clear what the tool returns, but it names no sibling and does not distinguish itself from mixed_outcome_workflows or recent_runs.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like recent_runs or mixed_outcome_workflows. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope (all runs vs a specific run_id), or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral traits beyond the schema: the output is truncated ('bounded'), content is scrubbed ('sanitized'), and the source is 'untrusted', which is a useful safety signal. However, it omits what sanitization removes, whether auth/scope is required, and any rate-limit or failure behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, and the resource and its key constraints are front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the sentence conveys the essential behavior. But for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage routing leave it only minimally complete.

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% and the description adds no meaning for repo, job_id, or lines. The word 'tail' weakly implies that 'lines' controls how many trailing lines are returned (default 80), but this is inference, not documentation, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Return') and resource ('tail of an ... GitHub Actions job log'), with three meaningful qualifiers: bounded, sanitized, untrusted. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like recent_runs and failing_jobs, which enumerate jobs rather than fetch log content, though it never names them.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus recent_runs, failing_jobs, or mixed_outcome_workflows, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a job_id must first be obtained from one of those tools). Usage is only inferable from the name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an interpretive trait (a signal, not definitive proof of flakiness), but says nothing about permissions, result volume/cost, or how lookback bounds the search.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, followed by a single high-value caveat. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 3-parameter analytical tool the definition omits any explanation of the parameters, the search window, and when this beats its siblings — enough gaps to be only minimally complete.

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 three parameters (repo, lookback, workflow) are undocumented anywhere. The description's mention of 'workflow/branch pairs' loosely hints at the workflow parameter but never explains repo format, the meaning of lookback (default 50), or the branch concept relative to inputs.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus a precise resource ('workflow/branch pairs with both success and failure outcomes'). The scope is distinct from siblings like failing_jobs and recent_runs, though no sibling is named explicitly to make the contrast airtight.

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 caveat that this is a 'workflow-level triage signal, not proof that a test is flaky' tells the agent how to interpret results, which implies a triage context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus recent_runs, failing_jobs, or job_log_tail, so routing is left to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one important safety note — returned GitHub text is untrusted — and 'List' implies read-only, but it omits permissions, rate limits, and pagination behavior. This is a useful partial disclosure, not a complete behavioral profile.

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 front-loaded sentence: the operation is stated first, followed by a semicolon-linked security note. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and sibling alternatives, the definition is only minimally complete: it omits parameter semantics and usage routing, relying on the schema and sibling names to fill those 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%: repo, limit, and branch have only titles and defaults. The description mentions none of them, so it does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation at all. An agent learns nothing about what the required repo value format is, what limit controls, or how branch filters results.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List recent workflow runs.' It distinguishes the broad purpose from more specific sibling tools only implicitly; it never names failing_jobs, job_log_tail, or mixed_outcome_workflows, so an agent must infer that this is the general list tool rather than the filtered variants.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Three sibling tools exist for narrower queries, but the description gives no routing cue such as 'use this for all recent runs, not just failing ones.'

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