List Workflow Runs Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say the operation is read-only and non-mutating, does not describe pagination behavior, defaults, result ordering, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. For a list tool with six parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with filtering and pagination.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, given no annotations and a multi-filter listing tool, the description leaves behavioral context (read-only nature, pagination, filtering defaults) entirely to structured fields.

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 100%, so all six parameters (repo, owner, branch, status, page, per_page) are already documented in the schema with defaults and filter semantics. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List GitHub Actions workflow runs'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like trigger_workflow_tool or rerun_workflow_run_tool beyond implying a read-only listing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the read-only listing context against the workflow mutation siblings, and no prerequisites or scope notes (e.g., single repo, paginated results). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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