github_actions_get_self_hosted_runner_for_repo

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

With no annotations and a bare description, the tool fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, safety, or side effects. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but no explicit confirmation or additional context (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits) is provided.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It earns a 4 because it is well-structured and front-loaded, but it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, annotations, and meaningful parameter descriptions, the tool definition lacks critical information about return values, error handling, and required permissions. For a tool with three required parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, but those descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'runner_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema technically covers all params, albeit with minimal useful detail.

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 'Get a self-hosted runner for a repository' clearly states the action (get) and resource (self-hosted runner) scoped to a repository. The name already distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_self_hosted_runner_for_org' and 'list_self_hosted_runners_for_repo', so the description suffices for purpose identification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing runners or getting a runner for an organization. The description does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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