github_list_workflow_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the read operation but does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or that logs are not returned (which github_get_workflow_logs covers). No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 with a leading verb and clear object. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 a moderate parameter set and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the purpose and optional filters. It could further describe return shape or ordering, but the schema covers parameters and the tool is straightforward. The combination is adequate for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds marginal value by mentioning status and branch filters, but does not enrich understanding of perPage, workflowId, or other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'recent runs of a GitHub Actions workflow' and mentions optional filters. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like github_list_workflows (which lists workflow definitions) and github_get_workflow_run (which gets a single run).

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 states what the tool does and that filters exist, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so usage context is only implied by the name and sibling list.

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