github_get_workflow_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only says it 'gets detailed information'. It does not confirm read-only nature, required scopes/permissions, rate-limit behavior, or what '詳細資訊' actually contains.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the return shape or at least the scope of '詳細資訊', but it does not. For a two-parameter fetch tool the definition is barely sufficient.

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%, with runId and repository both documented in the schema (including the owner/repo format), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning such as valid run ID ranges or repository resolution rules.

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 (獲取) and resource (特定工作流運行的詳細資訊), so an agent knows it retrieves one workflow run's details. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings such as github_get_workflow_runs (the list variant) or github_get_workflow_run_jobs, leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus github_get_workflow_runs or github_get_workflow_run_jobs, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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