list_workflow_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'allowed repository' scoping constraint, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like result ordering, pagination, or what happens when no runs exist. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose. Zero waste. Could mention filtering parameters, but the brevity is appropriate for a straightforward list operation. Not over-engineered.

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 relatively simple list tool with readOnly annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, given 4 parameters (2 undocumented, 1 only partially), it could explain what 'account', 'limit', and 'hostname' mean and how they interact. The lack of output schema means the return format is unknown to the agent. The sibling list_workflow_run_jobs exists, creating ambiguity about what each returns that isn't resolved.

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 only 25% (only 'repository' has a description: 'Repository in owner/name format'). The parameters account, hostname, and limit have no descriptions beyond their types. The description doesn't clarify what 'account' means in this context (org/user vs. GitHub account) or how limit works. The description adds essentially no parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 'List GitHub Actions workflow runs in an allowed repository' clearly states the verb (list), resource (workflow runs), and scope (allowed repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_workflow_run_jobs and dispatch_workflow, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The phrase 'allowed repository' adds context about access gating.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There's no mention of filtering options, pagination behavior, or how this differs from list_workflow_run_jobs (which lists runs' jobs). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'allowed repository' hint suggests access controls but doesn't clarify what those are.

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