gh_list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the valid state values, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or result ordering. Given the read-only nature, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 highly concise: one clear purpose sentence followed by a single line enumerating valid state values. Every element serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is a straightforward read-only list operation with existing annotations and an output schema. The description, combined with the annotations and schema, is sufficient for an agent to understand invocation. A brief note on pagination behavior or the meaning of 'per_page' would enhance completeness, but overall it is well-covered.

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 documents the valid values for the 'state' parameter, which is the most non-obvious parameter, but it does not explain 'repo', 'owner', or 'per_page'. While these names are fairly self-explanatory, the per_page parameter could benefit from clarification about pagination defaults or limits.

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 GitHub Actions workflows in a repository, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on different resources (e.g., gh_list_issues, gh_list_prs), but it does not explicitly differentiate from workflow-related tools like gh_get_workflow or gh_list_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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action and lists state values, without mentioning use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools such as gh_get_workflow or gh_list_runs.

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