github_get_workflow_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call is pollable and names the salient returned fields, but says nothing about polling cost, rate limits, or eventual consistency — the traits that matter most for a polling tool. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the identification of the resource front-loaded ahead of the polling hint. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 an output schema carry much of the burden, and the description covers what the call returns. The remaining gaps — how to obtain run_id and how aggressively to poll — are the ones an agent actually needs for a single-run lookup tool.

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 only 50%: repo is documented in the schema as 'owner/name' with a default, but run_id is a bare integer with no description anywhere. The description does not explain where a run_id comes from (e.g., github_list_workflow_runs), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one workflow run") plus the returned attributes ("status and conclusion"), which separates it from the list-style sibling github_list_workflow_runs. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied by "one" rather than stated.

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?

"Poll this to follow a run" gives a real operational cue about repeated invocation, which is useful. However, there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to github_list_workflow_runs when the run id is unknown, leaving selection to inference.

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