List CI runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and scoped (openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the sort order and the fact that runs come from .lizard/workflows, but says nothing about result limits, defaults, or pagination behavior for a 'recent' list.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs resource, location, ordering, and filters without filler. The clause about GitHub Actions syntax is slightly tangential but clarifies what 'workflows' means.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is being listed and how it is ordered. It omits the size/shape of the result set ('recent' is unbounded) and default behavior when no filters are passed, which an agent needs to reason about the response.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description does add meaning for the undocumented 'pr' parameter by identifying it as a pull request number, and confirms branch/status as filters. It still gives no format or matching semantics (exact vs. prefix branch match, how many results returned), so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List recent CI runs') plus scope (a Lizard Git repository, workflows under .lizard/workflows, GitHub Actions syntax) and ordering (newest first). The singular/plural split from the sibling ci_run_show is inferable but not explicitly called out.

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?

Filter dimensions (branch, pull request number, status) imply the discovery use case, giving some context for when to call it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over ci_run_show for a single run's details, nor on prerequisites like repo access.

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