List project runners

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive intent. The description adds valuable insight by stating that authentication tokens and CI variables are omitted from the response, which is a behavioral detail not covered by annotations. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key security aspect without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. However, with 9 parameters and minimal schema descriptions, the lack of guidance on filtering, pagination, and other options leaves the description incomplete for effective usage. The security note is helpful but does not fill the parameter gap.

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 only 11% (only 'project' is described). The tool description does not explain any of the other eight parameters (page, type, scope, paused, status, per_page, tag_list, version_prefix). With such low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not, making parameter usage unclear for the agent.

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 the action (list) and the resource (runners available to a project), and explicitly mentions what is NOT returned (authentication tokens and CI variables), which distinguishes it from potential similar tools. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It implies use when listing runners for a specific project, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., listing group runners). There is enough context to know it is project-scoped, but no exclusions or comparative guidance.

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