cicd_github_workflows

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

The description includes a '[SAFE]' tag implying it is a read-only operation, but no annotations are provided to confirm. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it returns all workflows at once, pagination, required permissions, or error handling.

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 very short (one line) and directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the safety tag and action. However, it is so concise that it omits useful information, which reduces its effectiveness.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is barely adequate. It does not explain the return value structure or any limitations, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's output.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'owner' and 'repo' identify the repository, but does not explain their format, required status, or any constraints. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the verb (List) and the resource (GitHub Actions workflows for a repository). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cicd_github_workflow_runs' which focuses on runs, and 'cicd_gitlab_*' tools which are for GitLab.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many CI/CD tools, but the description does not provide any criteria for selecting this one over others like 'cicd_gitlab_pipelines' or 'cicd_github_workflow_runs'.

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