github_actions_download_job_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and open-world, and the description adds the material behavioral fact they do not cover: the response is truncated to the last 200 lines plus error-looking lines, with line numbers and the true log length. That prevents an agent from assuming it received the full file, which matters for a multi-megabyte log.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and why it is truncated, then the workflow guidance. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (line counts, error extraction, real length). Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 100%, and the schema already explains that jobId is the job's id from actions_list_jobs_for_run, not its name or the run id. The description reinforces that routing but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a failing job's log') and immediately scopes what is returned, which separates it from generic run-level tools. It names two siblings it relates to (actions_list_jobs_for_run, checks_list_annotations), so an agent can place it precisely in the workflow.

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?

Explicit sequencing: use after actions_list_jobs_for_run has named the job, and try checks_list_annotations first because it is cheaper when the check reported a file and line. This is a real when-to-use / prefer-alternative rule, not an implied one.

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