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

Annotations only declare readOnly/destructive; the description adds the real operational context an agent needs: required 'repo' scope PAT or session, authority to manage the owner's runners, and the caveat that repository tokens are rejected on /mcp. It also explains the derived sharedLane/sharedLaneDetail semantics, which is behavior beyond the annotation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the single paragraph is dense, packing return-field enumeration, auth, a derived-field explanation and a full alternative API pathway into one run-on final sentence. Every clause is useful but the structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully by naming the returned fields and explaining the non-obvious sharedLane values and sharedLaneDetail. Auth and permission requirements are also covered, leaving nothing essential missing for a correct call.

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% and the single owner parameter is already documented as 'Username, org slug, or 'platform''. The description restates the same three accepted forms without adding format details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the CI runners registered to an owner') and enumerates exactly what comes back (id, name, url, labels, slots, online, last seen, revoked, shared signmessages). This clearly separates it from siblings such as gluecron_revoke_runner or gluecron_create_runner_registration_token.

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?

Gives the credential prerequisite and, for the read-only audit case, an explicit alternative path (mint a repo token with runners:read via gluecron_create_repo_token and call the REST endpoint). It names the sibling tool and the condition selecting it, though there is no general 'use X instead' routing against the other runner tools.

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