actions_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'lists all workflows' without mentioning permissions, pagination, response format, or whether this returns workflow definitions or runs. For a read operation, it does not clarify what the caller receives or any rate-limit implications, leaving significant gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but still incomplete. It does not describe what the response looks like, whether results are paginated, or whether special access is needed. For a list tool, users would benefit from knowing the output structure, but this information is absent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'owner' and 'repo' parameters beyond the implicit context of 'in a repository'. It adds no detail about required formats, defaults, or how these parameters map to the resource. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('lists') and clearly identifies the resource ('GitHub Actions workflows in a repository'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like actions_run_trigger (which triggers workflows) and list_check_runs_for_ref (which lists check runs), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest a sibling tool for related tasks (e.g., triggering workflow runs or listing check runs). The context of when to use this tool is only implied by the purpose statement.

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