gitea_runners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses required config (GITEA_URL + GITEA_TOKEN) and the shape of each runner record, but never states that the operation is read-only/no-side-effect, nor mentions pagination or result volume. Auth context is a plus; the safety profile is left to inference.

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?

One dense but well-structured sentence: resource first, returned fields in the middle, purpose at the end. No filler. Slightly overloaded with the parenthetical credential note, but every clause carries information.

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?

By enumerating the returned fields, it usefully substitutes for the absent output schema. But the single filter parameter is left entirely unexplained and the read-only nature is not asserted, so the definition is not fully complete for an agent to call it precisely.

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 defines a 'filter' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never explains it — whether it filters by name, online status, label, or something else. With a parameter present and undocumented in both places, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific resource (Gitea Actions runners) and enumerates the returned fields (name, online/offline, busy, labels), which makes the read-only inspection intent clear. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (gitea_runner_register / gitea_runner_remove), so it falls short of the top band.

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?

"to spot stale registrations and runners that announce another node's label" gives the agent a motivating use case. However, it never states when to prefer this over gitea_runner_remove or gitea_runner_register, nor any prerequisites, leaving the when-to-use decision implicit.

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