list_runner_managers

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the GET method in the endpoint. It does not disclose read-only safety, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects, leaving the agent to infer these from the HTTP verb.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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 simple single-parameter list operation, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter mapping. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. It could have added a note about absence of pagination or filters, but these are not essential for basic use.

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 input schema has no property descriptions and schema coverage is 0%. However, the description includes the URL template GET /runners/:id/managers, which clarifies that runner_id is the runner's identifier used in the path, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists runner managers, including the specific fields (version, platform, system_id) and the resource scope (for a runner). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_runners or get_runner.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The description implies usage when you need manager details for a specific runner, but it does not mention exclusions or compare with similar tools.

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