Get runner jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for the error behavior it adds: MissingParameterError when runner_id is absent and ParameterError for invalid params — important since the schema lists zero required parameters. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, or how filters narrow output.

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?

Short, but the 'Args: **kwargs' section is boilerplate noise that conveys nothing about the real 19-parameter surface. The useful content (returns, raises) is front-loaded acceptably.

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?

A read-only list endpoint with 19 undocumented filter parameters and no output schema needs far more description than this; an agent cannot tell what most filters do or how results are shaped beyond 'a list of Job models'.

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 0% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails: it only names runner_id (via kwargs) and mentions it is required. Filters like status, tag_list, active, locked, all_runners, and the group_id/project_id scoping variants are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Get jobs for a specific runner'), distinguishing it from pipeline- or project-scoped job tools by the runner noun. However it does not name the nearest siblings (gitlab_get_project_jobs, gitlab_get_pipeline_jobs) to make the routing explicit.

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 the other job-listing tools, no prerequisites or permission context. The only usage signal is the implicit requirement of runner_id via the exception section.

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