list_agent_runtime_options

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose what the tool shows (Codex/Claude Code harnesses, Backbone surfaces) and that these are configurable options, which is useful context beyond a bare 'list' statement. However, it does not disclose read-only/no-side-effect status, how the agent_type parameter affects results, or any auth/scope requirements. The description adds some value but leaves meaningful behavior undocumented.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose, content scope, and usage timing. The action verb is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value. It is appropriately sized for a simple discovery tool.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, what content it returns, and when to use it, and an output schema exists so return structure is documented elsewhere. The main gaps are the completely undocumented agent_type parameter and the absence of guidance distinguishing this from get_agent_runtime_config. For a one-optional-parameter list tool this is close to complete, but the parameter hole is a real deficiency.

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% and the description never mentions the sole parameter, agent_type. An agent calling this tool cannot infer what values are valid (e.g., 'codex', 'claude', 'backbone'), whether it filters results, or what the default '' means. Since coverage is zero, the description was obligated to compensate and did not, though the optionality of the parameter (default '') softens the impact slightly.

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 specific verb and resource ('List configurable Lightbulb agent runtimes') and elaborates with concrete content categories: 'Codex and Claude Code coding-agent harnesses plus Backbone host surfaces such as ChatGPT MCP.' This is clear and specific, and the listed content helps an agent distinguish it from configuration tools like configure_coding_agent_runtime. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so differentiation is implicit 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?

The description gives a direct usage instruction: 'Use this before configuring a runtime.' This tells the agent when in the workflow this tool belongs and implicitly frames it as a discovery/preflight step. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., get_agent_runtime_config for inspecting an existing config) or state exclusions, but the timing guidance is concrete enough to be actionable.

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