runner_health_rca

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

The description explains the analysis algorithm (flagging offline/stale/paused runners, queued jobs, tag saturation) and the return dict structure. With no annotations, it carries the burden well but omits potential behaviors like authentication requirements or error scenarios.

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-loaded with a concise summary, followed by a brief algorithm explanation and structured Args list. Could be slightly more concise but every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers all input parameters and high-level output structure, but lacks details on exact return fields (e.g., 'note' content) and error handling. No output schema provided.

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%, but the description's Args section provides clear explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'stale_contact_min: Minutes since last contact at which a runner is stale'). Adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property titles.

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?

Starts with '[READ] Flag offline/stale/paused runners, long-queued jobs, tag saturation' which clearly states the verb and resource. Positions itself as 'the flagship capacity RCA', distinguishing from sibling tools like list_runners and runner_detail.

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 usage context: explains when to pass 'runners'/'queued_jobs' for analysis vs a target for live pull. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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