list_runners

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is a READ operation, returns a specific structure, sorts offline/paused first, caps limits at 99, and raises a teaching error for Gitea. Lacks details on authorization or rate limits but sufficiently warns about non-broken error.

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?

Well-structured: starts with a one-line summary, then platform note, return format, and args. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but no waste.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return structure, sorting, platform limitation, and parameter details. Missing error scenarios beyond Gitea, but overall adequate for a list tool.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: status (possible values), limit (default and cap), target (server target). This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it lists all runners visible to the token, with sorting behavior (offline/paused first). It distinguishes from sibling tools like runner_detail and runner_health_rca by indicating it's a broad list, not a detail or health analysis. The platform restriction (GitLab only) is explicit.

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?

Provides clear context: use for listing all runners, with platform-specific guidance (Gitea yields a teaching error). Does not explicitly contrast with alternative list tools but implies its unique scope. The 'do not retry' instruction for Gitea is helpful.

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