show_running_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it requires specific permissions, potential performance impact on the cluster, or how results are formatted (e.g., table, list, JSON). For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, though the Returns section is somewhat redundant ('The queries running on the cluster' repeats the purpose). It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to scan.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics (purpose and parameters) but lacks depth for a monitoring tool. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structured data with columns like query_id, duration), potential limitations (e.g., only shows queries from connected nodes), or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and behavioral implications, it's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully documents all three parameters (node_id, user, min_duration) with their purposes, default values, and format for min_duration. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from examples or constraints (e.g., valid node_id ranges, user existence requirements). The description fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 specific action ('Show currently running queries') and resource ('on the cluster'), making the purpose immediately evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_query_history' (which shows past queries) and 'get_active_connections' (which shows connections, not queries). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 usage for monitoring current query activity but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't differentiate from 'get_query_history' for historical analysis or 'explain_query' for query optimization. The context is clear (real-time monitoring), but no explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or named alternatives is provided.

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