Get a workflow run

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful return-shape context and a subtle caveat that status is 'the outcome once there is one,' but it does not describe error behavior when a run is missing.

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 tightly packed sentences with no waste. The core operation is front-loaded, followed immediately by the return shape and the related-tool routing.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job naming the returned fields and referencing list_workflow_runs for the shape. It omits some detail such as pagination or not-found behavior, but those are minor for a single-resource read 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for owner, repo, and run_id, so the parameter documentation burden is already met. The description adds only the owner/repo/run_id grouping and a reminder that run_id comes from list_workflow_runs, which is already in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Actions workflow run by run_id.' It also clarifies the shape by naming list_workflow_runs and enumerating returned fields, which distinguishes this single-run getter from the list-oriented sibling.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to list_workflow_jobs and get_job_log for jobs and logs, which is strong when-not guidance for related data. It does not explicitly state when to use this rather than list_workflow_runs, though 'one ... by run_id' makes that boundary clear enough.

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