github_actions_list_jobs_for_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the shape of the result (per-job conclusion plus named failing steps) and that log retrieval is often unnecessary — information not present anywhere in structured fields.

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 with the core capability front-loaded and zero filler; the second sentence earns its place by encoding the practical payoff of calling this tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back (job conclusions, named failing steps). Pagination behavior and the filter default are left to the schema, which documents them adequately, so nothing critical is 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%, including the non-obvious `filter` latest/all semantics, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds nothing about owner/repo/runId/page/filter, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a run's jobs') and goes further by naming the return content (conclusion, failing steps). The closing clause implicitly differentiates it from github_actions_download_job_logs by noting you get the answer 'usually without reading a log at all'.

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?

Frames the trigger scenario precisely ('the run failed' → which job/step failed) and implies the log-download alternative is not needed. It stops short of explicitly naming github_actions_download_job_logs or stating when the log path is still required.

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