github_list_workflow_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists parameters and defaults (e.g., max_results=20) but does not describe return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or the read-only nature of the operation (beyond what the name implies).

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a parameter list. Each line is functional, though the parameter list is somewhat lengthy.

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 covers the core purpose and main parameters, and an output schema exists. It falls short on pagination details, what happens when max_results is exceeded, and how this function relates to workflow_run-specific operations.

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 Args section adds meaning: workflow_id is explained as 'ID or filename (empty = all workflows)', status lists five filter values, and branch/max_results have brief definitions. However, status values are not exhaustive and owner/repo are trivially explained.

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 states it lists workflow runs for a repository or a specific workflow, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_list_workflows (which lists workflow definitions) and github_get_workflow_run (which retrieves a single run).

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 implies usage for listing multiple runs and provides filter parameters, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison.

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