gh_list_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable context about pagination ('bounded page'), backward compatibility, and that filters are applied server-side, which affects result accuracy and performance. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 tight sentences deliver the core purpose and key behavioral notes without fluff. Every clause serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's 13 parameters and available output schema, the description covers pagination ('bounded page'), filter behavior (server-side), and backward compatibility, which are critical for correct usage. Minor gaps remain (e.g., default ordering, potential errors), but the provided output schema and annotations fill in much of the remaining context.

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 only 46%, and the description does not compensate by elaborating on parameter formats or relationships beyond naming 'exact workflow, head-SHA, event, actor, creation-range, and check-suite filters.' Since half the parameters lack schema descriptions and the description adds minimal parameter-specific insight, it falls short of compensating for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'one authoritative, bounded page of GitHub Actions workflow runs,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing server-side filtering and backward compatibility, making its purpose immediately clear.

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 provides clear context—filters are sent to GitHub's REST route rather than applied locally—which guides when to use this tool (when server-side filtering is desired). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it lacks direct exclusions.

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