runner_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It uses '[READ]' to hint at read-only. It mentions that using a Gitea target causes an error. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but does not disclose any potential side effects, performance, or caching behavior.

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 description is extremely concise: one line for purpose, one line for GitLab-only constraint, then two lines for parameter details. Front-loaded with '[READ]'. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It lists the fields returned (contacted_at, tags, paused, version) and explains both parameters. No missing information for a simple retrieval 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'runner' as 'Runner id (from list_runners)' and 'target' as 'Server target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema, which has no 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 reads one runner's full detail and lists specific fields (contacted_at, tags, paused, version). It distinguishes from siblings like list_runners and pause_runner/resume_runner by specifying it is a read operation on a single runner. Also notes GITLAB ONLY, which sets scope.

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?

The description gives good guidance by noting 'GITLAB ONLY — a Gitea target raises the same teaching error as list_runners', explicitly telling the agent when not to use. It also explains parameter usage (target optional, default). However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings like runner_health_rca, though the purpose is different enough.

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