runner_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the GitLab-only platform constraint and the specific failure behavior on other targets. It does not cover auth requirements, but no annotations are contradicted.

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 [READ] marker, then the platform constraint, then the Args block — a sensible priority order with no redundant filler. The Gitea-teaching-error sentence is slightly verbose but earns its place as an error-behavior disclosure.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and covers both parameters plus the platform limitation. Complete enough for a simple 2-param read tool; only auth/permission expectations are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the load and largely does so: it explains runner ('Runner id (from list_runners)') and target ('Server target name from config; omit for the default'), including the default/omission behavior. It doesn't state the id's format, but both parameters are meaningfully documented.

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 singular resource ('One runner's full detail') and enumerates the returned fields (contacted_at, tags, paused, version). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling it could be confused with, noting the runner id comes from list_runners, so an agent can separate it from list_runners without opening a 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 clear context: platform restriction ('GITLAB ONLY — a Gitea target raises the same teaching error as list_runners') and the prerequisite source for the id (list_runners). It stops short of explicitly stating when to pick this over runner_health_rca, which is left to inference.

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