get_active_queries

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading from a system view, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state this, nor does it describe the output format, potential row limits, or any performance considerations. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent about execution effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without filler. Every word contributes to the tool's function. This is an exemplary level of conciseness, even if other dimensions lack detail.

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 tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate for what the tool does, but it omits context like what the returned query information includes (columns, limits, ordering). Sibling tools such as get_query_store_stats and get_wait_stats are closely related, and without usage guidance, an agent may struggle to choose correctly. Given the tool's low complexity, a 3 is fair.

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 100% with a single optional parameter 'server' already documented as 'Target server name (uses default if omitted)'. The description adds no further meaning beyond this. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is acceptable, though no extra context about how server selection affects results is provided.

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 clear verb ('Show'), resource ('currently running queries'), and even identifies the underlying system view (sys.dm_exec_requests). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_query_store_stats or get_wait_stats.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_query_store_stats or get_deadlocks. No exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases are mentioned. The agent must infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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