monitor_active_operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool lists active operations and their status, implying a read-only operation, but does not explain what 'active' means, whether it returns operation IDs for follow-up, or any edge cases. It is not misleading but minimal.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the listing scope and what is included (status). However, it lacks context on what qualifies as an 'active operation' and how this relates to sibling monitoring tools, which could lead to ambiguity in complex workflows.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to augment. The description has no parameter information to add, matching the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active operations') with a clear scope ('all' and 'their status'). It distinguishes from siblings like monitor_job_status (specific job), monitor_project_progress (project-level), and monitor_system_health (system-level), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparisons to alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this over sibling tools like monitor_job_status or query_operation_history.

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