runner_manage

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds context about signed release assets and CLI installer behavior, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior for uninstall or migrate-host-key, which are potentially destructive or state-changing actions not covered by 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 description is two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence is a clear, front-loaded purpose statement; the second adds relevant operational context without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 actions, a nested target object, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers only 'probe' and a note about install/upgrades, omitting migrate-host-key, uninstall, confirm semantics, credential profiles, and any description of return values or state changes.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters like action, confirm, credentialProfile, or useDefaultCredential. The phrase 'saved SSH profile' is not tied to specific fields, and no parameter-level meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the tool's primary verb-resource pair ('Probe the durable Runner through a saved SSH profile') and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on policies, credentials, or jobs. However, it omits mention of other actions like migrate-host-key and uninstall, and the note that 'Installation and upgrades require a signed release asset and are performed by the CLI installer' could confuse users about whether the tool itself can perform those actions.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as credential_profile_save or ssh_password_save. The phrase 'through a saved SSH profile' implies a prerequisite, but there is no stated context, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.

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