Get group runners

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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds useful behavioral context by documenting the wrapper return and two error conditions: missing group_id and invalid parameters. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Returns/Raises sections are compact. The Args line is weak and mismatched with the actual named-parameter schema, but the description is not bloated.

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?

For a 19-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains the return wrapper and missing group_id, but omits the meaning of nearly every filter and any pagination or listing behavior.

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?

The schema has 19 named parameters with 0% description coverage, but the description only refers generically to **kwargs and mentions group_id as an example/error. It does not explain what filters like active, status, tag_list, all_runners, or runner_type do, leaving nearly all parameters semantically empty.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting information about runners in a group. It is clear enough to distinguish from non-runner tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like gitlab_get_project_runners or gitlab_get_runners.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. The group scope is implied, but the description never routes the agent between group, project, and global runner tools.

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