list_check_runs_for_ref

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states the read-only nature ('List') and the input scope, but does not disclose whether results include in-progress or concluded runs, pagination behavior, or response content. This is a gap given no annotations 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?

Single sentence, 13 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, no redundancy. It earns its place.

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 list operation with no output schema or annotations, the description states purpose and scope but omits return format, pagination, or compatibility notes. It is adequate but leaves gaps that structured metadata would normally fill.

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 input schema describes only 'ref' (33% coverage), and the description reinforces the ref types (branch, SHA, tag) already present. It does not clarify 'owner' or 'repo', which are essential and lack descriptions. Since coverage is low, the description fails to compensate.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'check runs' and clearly scopes it to 'a specific reference (branch, SHA, or tag)' while adding the intent 'to see CI/CD status'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_commits or get_commit.

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 provides clear context: use when you need CI/CD status for a particular branch, SHA, or tag. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose and scope are evident.

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