github_actions_list_workflow_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the sort order, which is genuinely new behavioral information, but its other substantive claim (the dual status/conclusion matching) restates what the schema already documents.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveat second; nothing is wasted. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the schema's status description, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 an 11-parameter list tool with no output schema and no title, the description covers ordering and the riskiest filter but says nothing about pagination behavior or the shape of the returned run objects. Annotations cover safety, but return-value framing is left entirely implicit.

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%, including the tricky status semantics and the excludePullRequests payload-size hint, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's status note duplicates the enum field's own description rather than adding syntax, defaults or interactions.

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 CI runs") plus an ordering guarantee ("most recent first"), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling github_actions_list_runs_for_workflow, which is the one thing an agent most needs to disambiguate here.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given a near-identical sibling (list_runs_for_workflow), the absence of a routing rule leaves the agent to infer the choice from the name alone.

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