Deploy Status

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

With no annotations, the description does the safety disclosure itself by saying `read-only` and by specifying it returns only the `latest` run. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens when no workflow run exists, but the read-only behavior is the most important trait.

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?

One short sentence conveys the resource, scope, and safety profile with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 small read-only status lookup, the description and input schema together cover the necessary invocation details, and the output schema covers return values. It would be more complete with a note about when no runs exist, but nothing critical is missing.

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, but it only gives context for `branch`. `owner` and `repo` are left to their self-evident names and the schema has no descriptions, so an agent receives little added semantic help.

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 names the exact resource (`GitHub Actions workflow run`) and the scope (`for a branch`), and the `(read-only)` qualifier separates it from sibling GitHub mutation tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns', which keeps it from a 5.

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 is given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as github_list_issues or github_pr_diff_summary, nor any exclusions for when it should not be used. The only hint is the title and the read-only label, which are implicit rather than stated.

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