get_workflow_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'recent' and 'pass/fail' but does not disclose behavior like default limit, pagination, whether in-progress runs are included, or how branches affect results. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easily scannable.

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?

As a simple getter with no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned. It mentions 'status (pass/fail)' but does not describe the response shape (e.g., list of runs, metadata) or how parameters like limit and branch affect results. It is adequate but could provide more context for an agent.

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 coverage is 75%, with owner, repo, and branch described. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, and the 'limit' parameter is left unexplained. However, the schema provides defaults and constraints, so the gap is not severe.

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 tool retrieves recent GitHub Actions workflow run status (pass/fail) for a repo. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow run status'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_issue or get_file_contents.

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 implies usage for checking CI status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention prerequisites or typical scenarios, though the purpose is self-evident from the name and description.

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