list_runners

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action and does not mention pagination, filtering capabilities, or the meaning of 'available', leaving the user without insight into the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the API endpoint. There is zero waste.

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 8 parameters and a sibling tool list, the description offers no usage context, no filtering implications, and no guidance on selection among the many runner-related tools. It is minimally sufficient only for the simplest interpretation.

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 8 parameters are entirely undocumented in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter details.

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 runners for the current user, with the verb 'List' and resource 'runners'. The scope 'available to the current user' differentiates from list_all_runners, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 scope 'available to the current user' implies this tool is for user-scoped runner listing, but there is no explicit statement about when to use it versus list_all_runners or list_project_runners.

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