list_check_runs_for_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'List check runs'. It does not mention pagination, filtering options, required permissions, or the shape of the response, which leaves the agent guessing about important behaviors.

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 sentence with a docs URL, no fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for such a focused list operation.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not outline filtering options, pagination behavior, or return value structure, making it adequate only for the simplest use case.

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 only 38%, and the description does not compensate. It repeats that 'ref' can be a SHA, branch, or tag, but gives no explanation for optional parameters like filter, status, check_name, page, or per_page, making it hard to use the full API surface correctly.

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 lists check runs for a Git ref (SHA, branch, or tag), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_workflow_runs or get_workflow_run, so there is no ambiguity.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (when needing check runs for a specific ref), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. The URL to docs is a helpful pointer, but no direct when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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