list_all_runners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses the admin/auditor permission requirement and the GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or other effects, leaving important behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and free of any filler. It efficiently conveys the core action, scope, endpoint, and permission requirement.

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 complexity (8 parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description provides only basic functional context. It covers purpose and permission but fails to explain any of the filtering parameters or provide guidance on how to use them effectively. The output schema covers return values, but parameter semantics are a significant gap.

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 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter explanations. While parameter names like 'page', 'status', and 'tag_list' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and allowed values of filters like 'scope', 'runner_type', and 'version_prefix'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'List', a specific resource 'runners', and a scope 'all runners on the instance'. It also references the exact API endpoint (GET /runners/all) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_runners by emphasizing 'all' and 'instance-wide'.

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 provides clear context: it is for instance-wide listing and requires admin or auditor permissions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the scope and permission requirements implicitly differentiate it from more scoped runner listing tools.

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