get_long_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral info, but it only states the purpose. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, what output format to expect, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a diagnostic tool.

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?

A single, grammatically correct sentence that gets straight to the point with zero waste. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it could add just one clause about usage without harming conciseness.

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 diagnostic with many siblings, the description lacks usage context and output expectations. It is adequate for invoking the tool but incomplete for choosing it over alternatives or anticipating its result.

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% and the single 'server' parameter is fully described in the schema ('Target server name (uses default if omitted)'). The tool description adds no extra parameter details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Show') with a clear resource ('long-running open transactions') and adds context ('may be holding locks'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_active_queries or get_blocking_chains without needing to enumerate 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many diagnostic siblings (e.g., get_blocking_chains, get_wait_stats, get_deadlocks). The description implies a use case but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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