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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation capability is flagged, but the description adds real context beyond that: the write requires admin scope, is audited, and the response then carries `saved`. It also explains the holdReason semantics and the in-process/external precedence rule, which annotations do not cover.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on paragraph dense with parentheticals and jargon ('declaration and its source', 'CI_EXECUTOR on the box'). It is information-rich yet hard to scan, so structure is only adequate.

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 no output schema, the description carries the response burden and does so reasonably: it names the returned fields (mode, declaration, source, runners, lastSeenAt, state, holdReason, saved, per-runner rows). It stops short of describing pagination/format but is otherwise complete for both the read and admin-write paths.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it explains that `declare` sets the estate-wide setting with enum values external/in-process/auto, that omitting it is read-only, and that the write is audited and returns `saved`. That is meaningful added context over 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 opening 'Where CI runs and why' plus the enumerated fields (mode, declaration, source, runners, state, holdReason) clearly frame this as a CI executor status/configuration tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like gluecron_ci_queue_status and gluecron_list_runners, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It notes that site admins (admin scope) may pass `declare` to write the estate-wide setting, and that in-process never runs while external runners are configured, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative routing (e.g. vs list_runners or ci_queue_status), leaving the agent to infer usage.

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