check_ci_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, but the description does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether this is specific to GitHub Actions. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 a single, tightly scoped sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to identifying the purpose, and it is immediately front-loaded with the core action and subject.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus fully documented schema is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It does not describe return value fields or explicitly rule out alternative tools, but nothing essential to making the call is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (owner, repo, limit) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the 'recent' and 'workflow runs' context, which does not meaningfully deepen parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('recent CI/CD workflow runs'), and the target system ('a GitHub repository'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_repo_health, analyze_code_scanning, and get_health_score.

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 implies when to use the tool by naming CI/CD workflow runs as the subject, and sibling tool names suggest the alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for related scenarios, so usage guidance remains mostly implicit.

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