get_workflow_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic read function. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, what 'recent' means, whether filters apply, or which run conclusions are included.

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?

One concise 10-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema structure.

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?

This is a simple 3-param read tool with an output schema present, so return-shape documentation is unnecessary. However, usage selection guidance and behavioral context (auth, filtering, recency definition) are missing, making it merely adequate for autonomous 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the limit parameter via 'recent' and leaves owner/repo completely implicit. An agent gets no explicit guidance on what each parameter controls or how limit interacts with recency.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent GitHub Actions workflow runs') and states what is returned ('their conclusions'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which target repository info, issues, and commits.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not name alternatives like get_open_issues or get_recent_commits, nor does it state conditions under which this tool should be preferred, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name alone.

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