github_list_check_runs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions routing and authentication (JWT/tenant/company) but fails to state that this is a read operation, what data it returns, or any side effects. The core behavior of listing check runs is uncharacterized.

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 short and front-loaded with the operation name, achieving conciseness. However, it omits essential information, so the brevity is not earned. It could be replaced with a more informative equivalent.

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?

Despite the output schema existing, the description fails to explain what the tool does or how to use the single parameter. For a 1-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this description is severely incomplete and does not enable correct invocation.

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 sole parameter `arguments` is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding minimal meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the description should detail what keys/values are expected (e.g., repo, ref, check name). It does not, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 restates the tool name ('list_check_runs') without adding meaningful detail about what it lists (e.g., for a repository, commit, or check suite). It does not differentiate from sibling `github_list_check_suites`, leaving the agent to guess the scope.

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 given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like `github_list_check_suites` or other listing tools. There are no prerequisites, filters, or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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