list_workflow_runs_tool

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

The description conveys a non-mutating operation via 'List', and there are no annotations to contradict. With no annotations, the description carries more burden, but it leaves behavioral details like default owner resolution, pagination, and filter behavior to the schema and output schema rather than disclosing them in prose.

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?

The description is one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and every word earns its place.

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 schema and output schema provide the parameter details and result shape, so the tool is callable from the one-line description. However, it omits prose-level context about optional filtering, pagination, and how it relates to the workflow siblings, making it only minimally complete.

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 already have meaningful documentation for filters, pagination, and owner default. The description adds no new parameter semantics; it only reinforces that 'repo' is the core scope.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('GitHub Actions workflow runs') scoped to 'a repository', so an agent can tell what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like trigger_workflow_tool and rerun_workflow_run_tool by the read-only listing action, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 verb 'List' implies the tool is for retrieving existing workflow runs, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over trigger/rerun alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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