get_workflow_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Requires Actions: read', conveying that this operation has no side effects and needs a specific permission. This adds valuable safety context beyond a bare 'List' statement, though it omits details like pagination or result ordering.

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 highly concise: two short sentences totaling 14 words. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the permission/read-only notes are valuable additions. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with seven parameters, the description remains minimal. It covers the core list operation but ignores the five optional filter parameters (actor, event, branch, status, max_results). With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the agent lacks essential input semantics. The presence of an output schema helps with returns but does not compensate for the missing input guidance.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, leaving all seven parameters (owner, repo, actor, event, branch, status, max_results) without semantic explanation in the schema. The description also fails to elaborate on any of these parameters, so the agent cannot infer their meaning or usage beyond their names and types. No compensation for the schema gap is provided.

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 tool's function: 'List GitHub Actions workflow runs for a repository.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('GitHub Actions workflow runs') with a clear scope ('for a repository'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_repositories and list_commits.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. It mentions a permission requirement ('Requires Actions: read') and read-only nature, but does not explain contexts in which this tool is preferred over other list tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tool names.

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