get_pipeline_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the output's key fields (build status, duration, triggered by) and implies read-only via the word 'Get'. However, it omits any mention of expected ordering, pagination behavior, or whether it relies on a configured repository context, leaving a significant portion of the operational behavior under-described.

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, focused sentences with the operative verb and resource front-loaded. Every word contributes: the first declares what is retrieved, the second states the critical output fields. No generic marketing fluff or repetition of schema parameters. Exceptional structural efficiency.

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?

Given the low complexity, the schema covers the known parameters, and the description specifies return fields, the missing text is modest but still annoying. The description does not state the default scope of 'recent' (e.g., default sort order, repository context, or whether it hits GitHub Actions directly). A short note such as 'sorted by newest first' or 'for the configured repo' would complete the picture. As is, it's adequate but has clear gaps for an agent that must traverse the whole state.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters ('limit' and 'workflow') with 100% coverage. The description only states the general fields that will be returned, and provides no additional meaning about how workflow filtering or the limit parameter behaves. The schema handles the grounding parameter semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('CI/CD pipeline runs'), and the source ('GitHub Actions'). It also specifies the key fields exposed (build status, duration, triggered by), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_mlflow_runs or get_pipeline_summary, removing any ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 makes the context of use clear: an agent should call this when the intent is to retrieve recent CI/CD pipeline runs from GitHub Actions. While it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, the phrase 'recent CI/CD pipeline runs from GitHub Actions' is specific enough. It lacks a 'use get_pipeline_summary instead when...' note, but the context is not vague.

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