gh_list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds the allowed state filter values, but no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior or response shape is disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, with a clear main sentence followed by a helpful list of state values. Every part adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple list operation, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely adequate. It includes the key state filtering options, though it could briefly mention pagination via 'per_page' or clarify that only workflows, not runs, are listed.

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 carries the burden. It adds useful semantics by listing valid values for the 'state' parameter, but provides no detail for 'owner', 'repo', or 'per_page' beyond their names and defaults. The parameters are relatively self-explanatory, but coverage is incomplete.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('GitHub Actions workflows in a repository'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like gh_get_workflow (specific workflow) and gh_list_runs (workflow 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 implies when to use the tool through its 'List GitHub Actions workflows' phrasing, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are named.

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