GitHub-hosted runner labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the possible statuses (including 'retired' meaning no longer provided) and the default of returning all labels if none are specified. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, enriching the agent's understanding of behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, examples, and statuses, then the default behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter, and an output schema exists (so return format is covered). The description covers purpose, default behavior, and statuses. Annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive). It lacks explicit prerequisites or error conditions, but for a read-only status tool, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single optional 'labels' parameter. It does provide examples of label names and clarifies that omitting the parameter returns all labels, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's purpose (e.g., 'labels to check status for'). The description adds some meaning but not a direct parameter explanation.

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 verb+resource (status of GitHub-hosted runner labels) and gives concrete examples (ubuntu-22.04, macos-14, windows-2019) and statuses (available, beta, deprecated, retired). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (action_versions, check_workflows) by focusing on runner labels, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening schemas.

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 implies usage by topic (runner labels vs. action versions or workflows) and clarifies the default behavior when the optional 'labels' parameter is omitted ('Without labels, every label GitHub lists now'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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