list_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description is a simple read operation ('lists'), which is low-risk, but it doesn't mention pagination behavior, how 'recent' is determined, whether runs are returned in any particular order, or what max_items does if exceeded. For a read-only listing tool this is marginal, but with zero annotation support the description should do more.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose well. However, with 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is arguably under-specified rather than concise; a bit more detail would be worth the added length.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, but the tool has 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sits among closely related siblings (list_workflows, list_pull_requests). The description provides only the minimum purpose statement and fails to clarify parameter semantics, ordering, or filtering behavior, leaving the agent to guess at acceptable values for event/status/branch filters.

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 for all 6 parameters, but it only mentions 'optional filters' generically. It doesn't explain that 'event' refers to trigger events, that 'status' maps to specific GitHub run statuses (queued, in_progress, completed, etc.), or the relationship between owner/repo requirements. Only the 'repo' required parameter is self-explanatory from the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Lists recent GitHub Actions workflow runs with optional filters.' This is clear about the resource (workflow runs) and the scope (recent). However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'list_workflows', which is closely related (listing workflows vs. listing workflow runs). Both descriptions would benefit from differentiation.

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 says 'recent' and 'with optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'list_workflows' or other siblings. There's no mention of the GitHub API limits on run history, pagination behavior, or what 'recent' means concretely. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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