list_workflow_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds useful context about the 'recent' scope and branch filtering, but does not disclose details like pagination limits or default ordering. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning without 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with 3 parameters, a clear purpose, and a use case, the description is complete. The schema covers parameter specifics, annotations cover safety, and the description covers scope and invocation context. No output schema exists, but 'List' implies a return payload.

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%. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by branch', which aligns with the branch parameter, but does not add detail beyond what the schema already provides ('Only runs for this branch'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 has a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GitHub Actions workflow runs'), and adds scope ('recent', 'optionally filtered by branch'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_prs, list_repos, and list_commits by naming a distinct GitHub Actions resource.

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?

Explicitly identifies a use case: 'check CI status after pushing'. This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use case is concrete enough to guide selection.

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