Get runner

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond them, notably that runner_id is effectively required (MissingParameterError) and that invalid parameters raise ParameterError, plus it notes the wrapped Runner return value.

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 description is short. The docstring-style Args/Returns/Raises structure is efficient, though the generic '**kwargs' framing is not well aligned with the explicit schema properties.

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 tool with 19 schema properties and no output schema, the description is too thin. It mentions the Runner model wrapper and key errors, but leaves most parameters unexplained and does not fully resolve the mismatch between zero required schema fields and the stated runner_id requirement.

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 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description explains only runner_id as an example and otherwise refers generically to **kwargs. It does not clarify the many other parameters or which are relevant to a get operation.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get information about a specific runner.' It distinguishes a singular runner lookup from list-style siblings by saying 'specific runner,' but it does not name any sibling or explicitly contrast with get_runners/get_project_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?

Usage is only implied: call this when you need information about one runner. The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_runners, get_project_runners, or get_group_runners, nor does it state exclusions.

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