gh_list_runs

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the notion of recency and enumerates allowed status values, but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination limits or default ordering beyond what annotations cover.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The status value enumeration is compact and useful, though the formatting is slightly awkward with line breaks inside a sentence.

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?

Presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, given 5 parameters and zero schema coverage, the description should provide more context about branch filtering and pagination. It is adequate for a straightforward list operation but leaves several gaps.

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. It only clarifies the 'status' parameter by listing possible values (completed, in_progress, etc.), leaving owner, repo, branch, and per_page unexplained. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 recent GitHub Actions workflow runs, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gh_get_run (specific run) and gh_watch_run (monitor runs).

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 description provides a useful list of status filter values, which implies how to filter results. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives like gh_get_run or gh_watch_run, so usage context is only implied.

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