List Workflow Runs Tool

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context — and it adds essentially none. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, filter semantics, or any rate-limit/auth notes beyond what the annotation and schema already convey.

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 zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, but nothing in it wastes space.

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 a full output schema, annotations, and 100% schema coverage, much of the burden is carried elsewhere, so a short description is defensible. However, for a six-parameter filtered-list tool that sits alongside many workflow siblings, the absence of any routing or filtering guidance leaves a real gap.

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% across all six parameters (repo, owner, branch, status, page, per_page), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no syntax or filtering guidance beyond that, which lands it at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('GitHub Actions workflow runs'), and scope ('for a repository'), which cleanly separates it from the singular get_workflow_run_tool and the mutating trigger_workflow_run_tool/rerun_workflow_run_tool siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention that this is the collection-level counterpart to get_workflow_run_tool, and no indication of when filters like branch or status should be applied. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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