get_runner_job_router_discovery

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

The description notes the HTTP method and the Runner-Token header, which are useful behavioral details. However, with no annotations, the description must disclose safety, side effects, or constraints; it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe response behavior or potential errors.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and structured well, though the brevity sacrifices substance.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits usage context, when to invoke it, and any behavioral details beyond the endpoint and header. The existing output schema may cover return values, but the description provides insufficient context to fully understand the tool's place in the API.

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 description hints that authentication_token is used as the Runner-Token header, giving context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the 'authentication_token' parameter maps to the header, and with 0% schema coverage, this indirect reference only partially clarifies the parameter's role.

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 identifies the endpoint (GET /runners/router/discovery) and mentions 'Job Router discovery', but it doesn't explicitly state what the tool accomplishes or what data it returns. The name and endpoint imply a read operation for job router configuration, which distinguishes it from sibling tools, but the purpose remains vague without a concrete verb or outcome.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool, under what circumstances, or how it compares to alternatives like get_runner or list_runners. The phrase 'Job Router discovery' is a label rather than a usage instruction.

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