github_get_workflow_run

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful operational context: calls route through the governed project/account connector authority and Spring verifies that effect is read. The approval_ref note about 'resuming a write' is mildly confusing for a read-only tool, but it does not directly contradict the annotations.

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 bulleted Args list is compact and readable, and the governance constraint is front-loaded. However, the first sentence simply restates the tool name and platform path, adding no information. It is serviceable but not tightly written.

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?

Annotations and output schema reduce the need to describe return values and safety, and the Args block covers all wrapper parameters. Still, an agent must infer what to place inside the `arguments` JSON to target a specific workflow run, and there is no differentiation from github_get_workflow_run_logs or github_list_workflow_runs. This is minimally adequate for a connector wrapper, but not 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args block carries the full burden, and it does explain all seven parameters: JSON-string arguments, Authenticated Project UUID, correlation reference, connector account alias, idempotency key, effect-read requirement, and approval ref. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults. The main limitation is that the critical `arguments` field is only described as a JSON string, leaving the actual GitHub run-identification payload unspecified.

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 opens by restating the tool's name and platform path ('Github connector operation get_workflow_run', 'platform tool github.get_workflow_run') rather than stating what it does. No explicit action verb like 'retrieves', 'returns', or 'fetches' appears. The only substantive sentence is about governed routing, which is a constraint, not a purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_get_workflow_run_logs, github_list_workflow_runs, or github_cancel_workflow_run. The description does not name any sibling tool or describe a triggering scenario. The 'Routes only through...' sentence is an invocation constraint, not usage guidance.

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