github_get_workflow_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explain what 'details' includes, whether authentication or specific permissions are needed, or how the response is structured. The minimal description adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 concise with a single front-loaded sentence and no fluff. However, the parameter list duplicates the input schema, which is redundant, though it does not harm efficiency. Overall structure is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 tool's context among many workflow-related siblings, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for missing return-value descriptions, but the description still fails to provide the operational context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names already visible in the input schema. It simply lists owner, repo, run_id, and session_name without explaining their roles or any constraints, so the agent gets no value from the description in understanding parameters.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific workflow run'), which clearly indicates the tool's function. While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like github_list_workflow_runs or github_get_run_logs, the verb-resource combination is distinct enough to differentiate it from list and action-oriented tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, no mention of when a user would need a run_id, and no comparison with sibling tools such as list_workflow_runs or get_run_logs, leaving the agent without decision support.

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