Get project runners

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only boilerplate about a response wrapper and two exception types, and its '**kwargs ... e.g., project_id' line misdescribes an interface where project_id is an explicit schema parameter. Pagination and filtering behavior go unmentioned.

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 sentence is front-loaded and fine, but the rest is auto-generated docstring scaffolding (Args/Returns/Raises) that earns little: the Args section is inaccurate and the Returns line says little beyond 'a list of Runner models'.

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 read tool with no output schema and no param descriptions, the description leaves nearly everything undocumented — which filters exist, how they combine, whether results paginate. Only error types and an approximate return shape are covered.

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?

19 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — not the filter flags, not project_id vs group_id, not the runner attribute fields. The single parameter reference (project_id inside **kwargs) is boilerplate that adds confusion rather than meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('runners in a project'), which implicitly separates it from gitlab_get_runners and gitlab_get_group_runners. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 on when to use this versus gitlab_get_runners or gitlab_get_group_runners, and no mention of what filters (active, paused, status, tag_list) are useful for. The only usage hint is an implied prerequisite that project_id is required.

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