get_runner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only GET operation via 'Get details,' but does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or any additional behavioral quirks. The output schema covers return values, but nothing else is added.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action, resource, and parameter in a succinct and readable manner.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly specifies what the tool does and how to identify the target resource. It could mention that this is for a single runner as opposed to listing, but that is already implied by 'by ID'.

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 has one required parameter (runner_id) with no description coverage. The description's 'by ID' maps to runner_id and clarifies its role, but does not elaborate on the ID's format, source, or relationship to runners. This partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('runner by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_runners, update_runner, and delete_runner. It also includes the HTTP endpoint, adding precision.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies use when you have a specific runner identifier and need its details, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_runners or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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