github_list_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states a read-only listing operation, which is transparent on the surface, but does not disclose potential pagination, required authentication, error behavior, or the output format. Since an output schema exists, return format is covered there, but other behavioral details are missing.

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 brief and well-structured. The main sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' list identifying each parameter. No fluff or redundant information appears.

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 simplicity, the description covers the basic functionality and all parameters. The output schema handles return value details, so that omission is acceptable. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool over related siblings and omits behavioral aspects like session requirements or potential errors, making it only minimally complete.

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 has bare titles (Owner, Repo, Session Name) with 0% description coverage. The description provides one-liners for each parameter, but these are largely rephrasings of the parameter names ('owner: Repository owner', 'repo: Repository name'). Only 'session_name: GitHub session to use' adds modest context. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the action ('List all GitHub Actions workflows') and the resource ('in a repository'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like github_list_workflow_runs which lists runs, not workflows.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or differences from sibling tools such as github_list_workflow_runs or github_trigger_workflow. The context signals show many workflow-related siblings, but the description gives no help choosing among them.

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