list_project_runners

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP GET method, implying read-only, but does not elaborate on pagination, filtering behavior, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The minimal detail goes little beyond the basic list action.

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, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and scope and efficiently includes the API endpoint. Every word serves a purpose, exemplifying good conciseness even if more detail is needed elsewhere.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex (9 parameters) and has no annotations or schema descriptions. The description provides almost no context beyond the basic purpose, omitting mention of the many filter and pagination parameters. The endpoint informaion is helpful but insufficient for an agent to understand how to effectively use this tool.

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 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanations for any of them. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the meanings of parameters like 'tag_list', 'runner_type', and 'version_prefix' entirely to inference from names and types.

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 action ('List runners') and resource scope ('available to a project'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_all_runners or list_group_runners. Including the API endpoint (GET /projects/:id/runners) adds precision and confirms the project-scoped nature.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_runners, list_all_runners, or list_group_runners. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name and description.

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