list_project_runners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the result set is a union of project-owned runners and tagged global runners, so an agent won't assume results are confined to the project. It says nothing about pagination or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return-set definition; the trailing API route is compact and aids mapping to the REST surface. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint string adds little an agent cannot infer.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives what an agent needs: what it returns, whose runners, and the inclusion rule for global runners. No critical calling information is missing.

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 project_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description supplies the parameter name via the endpoint template 'GET /project/{project_id}/runners', but adds no semantics such as access requirements or what an invalid project yields, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Returns runners owned by the project together with global runners that have tags.' It also defines the scope of the return set, which distinguishes it from a plain runner list. It does not name list_global_runners as the sibling it contrasts with, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 this is appropriate (you want the project's own runners plus tagged global ones) but never states when to use list_global_runners or get_project_runner instead. Usage is inferable from scope wording only; no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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