list_runners

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: result ordering (offline/paused first *before* the truncation cut), the truncation flag, the returned row count, and the platform-capability error semantics. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to interpret partial results.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the sorting guarantee, then the platform caveat, then args — a sensible order. The Gitea paragraph is long relative to the tool's simplicity, but it earns its space by preventing a misdiagnosed retry loop.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description sketches the return object ({runners, returned, limit, truncated}), which is the key missing structured information. Remaining gaps are the 100-vs-99 limit discrepancy and no mention of pagination or how to page past the cap.

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%, so the description carries the burden and largely delivers: it enumerates the status values (online, offline, paused, stale) that the schema leaves as an unconstrained string, and explains target as a config name where omission means the default. Minor flaw: it says limit is 'default 100, capped at 99', which conflicts with the schema default of 100 and is internally odd.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: '[READ] All runners visible to the token, offline/paused first.' The 'All runners' framing implicitly separates it from runner_detail (single runner) and from pause_runner/resume_runner (mutations). An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 strong when-not guidance for the Gitea case, explicitly telling the agent not to retry or report the server unreachable and to answer from the pipeline/job surface instead. It does not, however, name the sibling tools it competes with (runner_detail, runner_health_rca) or state when a status filter is preferable to a full listing.

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