Get runners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts not in annotations: the return shape (a wrapper containing a list of Runner models) and that invalid parameters raise ParameterError. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or the scope of runners returned.

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 enough and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, but the bulk is auto-generated docstring scaffolding ('Args: **kwargs', 'Returns: Response') whose lines spend space on boilerplate rather than on the information an agent actually needs.

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, untyped-filter, no-output-schema listing endpoint at 0% schema coverage, the definition should explain filtering semantics, ID scoping, and pagination. It covers only the return wrapper and error type, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct filtered query from the description alone.

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 carries the full burden and largely fails it — active, locked, paused, tag_list, runner_type, access_level, all_runners, maximum_timeout and the id-scoping fields are all unexplained. Worse, the one concrete hint ('scope, status') points at a 'scope' parameter that does not exist in the schema, while 'status' does; the generic '**kwargs' framing obscures rather than clarifies.

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 verb+resource ('Get information about runners') is readable, and the plural implies a listing operation. However, the schema exposes runner_id alongside group_id/project_id, leaving ambiguous whether this fetches one runner or many, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_runner, gitlab_get_project_runners, or gitlab_get_group_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?

The description never says when to use this tool versus gitlab_get_runner / gitlab_get_project_runners / gitlab_get_group_runners, which is the key routing decision for a 19-parameter runner endpoint. The only hint is 'e.g., scope, status' inside the kwargs note, which is incidental rather than guidance.

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