long_running_queries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature via '[READ]', the filtering by min_seconds, and the time ordering. However, it does not mention details such as result fields, whether all schemas/users are included, performance impact, or behavior when no queries match—leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise, with a one-sentence summary followed by a minimal Args list. Every sentence is necessary and informative, with no redundant content. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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-only tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the core behavior and parameter semantics adequately. The only notable gap is the lack of any mention of return format or output fields, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's low complexity, this is a minor omission.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section explicitly defines both parameters: min_seconds as 'Minimum age in seconds' and target as 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds essential semantic value and fully compensates for the schema's lack of explanatory text.

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 exactly what the tool does: it lists active statements running at least `min_seconds`, ordered oldest first. The specific verb (implied 'list') and resource ('active statements') with clear criteria distinguish it from siblings like top_queries or list_sessions, even without naming alternatives.

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 to use this tool (when you need to see active long-running statements) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over similar tools such as top_queries or slow_query_rca. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, making the usage context clear but not fully explicit.

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