Check GitHub Actions Workflow

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful context by specifying that it returns diagnostics for failed jobs and steps, which helps the agent anticipate the output. It does not contradict any 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no redundant words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 check tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return value (failed diagnostics). Combined with the safety annotations and the simple parameter set, this is sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema provides a description for 'name' but not for 'timeout_ms' (50% coverage). The tool description does not explain either parameter or add meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the undocumented timeout_ms parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Check the latest run'), a specific resource ('registered GitHub Actions workflow'), and the return value ('failed job and step diagnostics'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_gitlab_pipeline or check_http_target.

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 usage for GitHub Actions workflows but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like check_all or check_gitlab_pipeline. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so usage context is only implicit.

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