recommend_runner_capacity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool is advisory and never scales resources, making its non-mutating nature clear. It does not cover other behavioral details such as permissions or determinism, but the critical safety property is present.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers purpose and a critical constraint immediately.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and five parameters, the description is thin on parameter semantics and usage context. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for five parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning whatsoever for queued_jobs, current_runners, maximum_runners, average_job_seconds, or target_queue_seconds.

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 verb ('Calculate') and resource ('runner capacity'), and explicitly distinguishes the tool from any scaling action. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_fleet_status or get_cost_estimate.

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 implies when not to use it ('never scales resources'), which is useful, but it does not state when to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks. Usage context must be inferred from the purpose alone.

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