get_global_runner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description only restates the HTTP method. It adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as response shape, permissions, or error 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 two short sentences with no filler and the purpose is front-loaded. The endpoint is arguably redundant, but it does not burden the reader.

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 read-by-ID tool, the annotations and schema cover much of what is needed, but the description never explains what the returned global runner contains or any access constraints. With no output schema, that return-value gap matters.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required runner_id parameter has no schema description. The endpoint template conveys that runner_id is a path parameter, but adds little beyond the property name and does not explain where to obtain it or what it identifies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('global runner') and includes the endpoint. It implicitly distinguishes global runners from project runners via the resource name, but does not explicitly contrast with get_project_runner or list_global_runners.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The GET endpoint implies retrieval by ID, but the agent is not told when to choose this over get_project_runner, list_global_runners, or other sibling getters.

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