github_list_workflow_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful ordering trait (newest first) but says nothing about pagination, what `limit` truncates, or whether results are cached/filtered — and no output explanation is needed since an output schema exists.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and ordering front-loaded before the parameter clarification. Every clause carries 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?

The output schema removes the need to describe return values, and the workflow identifier format is covered. Still, for a 4-parameter listing tool with 25% schema coverage, the description leaves `branch` filtering and `limit` semantics entirely unexplained, which an agent must guess at.

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 coverage is only 25% (just `repo` is documented), so the description is doing real work by explaining that `workflow` accepts a name, a file name like 'ci.yml', or an id — a genuinely non-obvious detail. However, `limit` (default 10) and `branch` remain undocumented in both places, so it only partly compensates 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 ('List runs of a workflow') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is enough to separate it from github_get_workflow_run (single run) and github_list_workflows (the definitions, not the runs). It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred 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?

The second sentence is parameter guidance, not usage guidance; there is no statement of when to reach for this versus github_get_workflow_run or github_list_workflows. The purpose is self-evident enough that the right tool is implied, but nothing is explicit.

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