verify_runner_authentication

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool authenticates with the runner token only, not PRIVATE-TOKEN. However, it does not mention any side effects, safety profile, or response behavior, especially since this is a POST operation, leaving some uncertainty about whether it is a safe, read-only check.

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 that immediately states the purpose and the key authentication detail. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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 simplicity, the description covers the basic action, but it lacks usage guidance and parameter context, and there is no additional context signal from annotations or output schema to supplement it. It does not explain what the result of verification indicates or how to interpret the response, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. It only refers to 'runner token' which maps to authentication_token implicitly, but system_id is completely unexplained. This does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 action ('Verify runner credentials') and identifies the specific resource ('runners') and endpoint ('POST /runners/verify'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting it verifies credentials rather than deleting, resetting, or listing them, and specifies the auth token type, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_runners or delete_runner_by_authentication_token. The only contextual hint is that it uses the runner token instead of PRIVATE-TOKEN, which hints at a specific auth scenario but does not clarify the intended use case or exclusions.

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