github_list_workflow_runs

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

The description mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides minimal behavioral context about authentication and authorization. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, rate limits, or pagination behavior. With no annotations, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 very brief (three sentences) and can be read quickly. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance: it includes routing details that may be irrelevant for the agent's decision-making while omitting essential information about usage and parameters. It is concise but not effectively structured for an agent.

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 single opaque parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain that this tool lists workflow runs and what parameters can be passed. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly. The routing information does not compensate for the lack of functional completeness.

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 only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema coverage, the description provides no details about the expected keys, value types, or defaults (beyond the schema's '{}' default). The agent has no way to know what arguments are available (e.g., repo, workflow_id, status, per_page).

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 merely restates the tool name (list_workflow_runs) and identifies it as a GitHub connector operation. It does not clarify what workflow runs are, what scope they apply to (e.g., a specific repository or all), or how it differs from sibling tools like github_get_workflow_run or github_list_workflow_jobs. This is essentially a tautology.

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 is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., github_get_workflow_run) would be more appropriate. This omission is critical given the many similar GitHub list tools available.

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