list_workflow_runs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description merely restates that it lists runs. It adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, ordering, or rate-limit considerations, though it does not contradict the annotation.

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 one concise sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the optional filtering detail appended. No filler or repetition is present.

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?

The description plus annotations and output schema give enough for a basic listing call, but it lacks guidance on filter values, pagination, and how it complements get_workflow_run. It is minimally viable without being rich.

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 description must compensate. It identifies status and event as optional filters, but it says nothing about page, limit, owner, or repo semantics, leaving most parameters to be inferred from their names.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List Actions workflow runs', making it clear this retrieves multiple workflow runs. The contrast with sibling 'get_workflow_run' and 'dispatch_workflow' is evident from the wording, so an agent can distinguish it.

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?

It mentions optional status/event filters but gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over get_workflow_run or other siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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