get_report_queries_asset_processes_running

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It implies a GET (read) operation and mentions that headers may be required, but it does not explain authentication needs, rate limits, pagination specifics, or what the response contains. The description is too sparse to properly inform an agent about call behavior.

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, compact sentence that quickly states the action and parameter usage. It is not bloated, and the key point is front-loaded. However, it could be structured more clearly with explicit parameter breakdown, but it is still efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (indicated by 'has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. But it still lacks context about prerequisites, authentication, or the meaning of 'asset processes running'. For a simple GET endpoint, this is borderline adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides high-level guidance: route IDs go in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers. This gives some meaning beyond the schema's generic objects, but it lacks concrete key names or examples. The body parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve asset processes running') and the resource (asset processes), and names the exact endpoint. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_r_report_queries_asset_software, the focus on 'asset processes running' is specific enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 other report query tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives. An agent would not know if this is the right tool for a given task beyond reading the name.

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