github_check_workflow_runners

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions detection and risk assessment but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, or required permissions. Missing critical behavioral details for a security check.

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?

Single sentence is concise but includes cryptic 'Detects ACT-005' without explanation. Could be improved by clarifying what ACT-005 refers to or structuring the description for better scannability.

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?

No output schema and missing behavioral details. Agent cannot determine what 'assess persistence/exposure risk' means in practice, what output to expect, or how to interpret results. Incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (org, owner, repo). The tool description adds 'detect self-hosted runners' but does not clarify how parameters interact or add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to full schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool detects self-hosted runners and assesses persistence/exposure risk, with a specific detection ID (ACT-005). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_check_workflow_injection.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_check_workflow_pinning or github_check_workflow_oidc. The description implies it is for security assessment but lacks explicit context for selecting this tool over others.

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