Running jobs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the title it repeats — no note on whether results are paginated, how 'currently running' is defined, or whether the set can change between calls (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the scoping phrase ('currently running') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true concision.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks the return shape (e.g. whether items carry job IDs usable with axcel_job_status or axcel_download_job) and any account/scope caveats. It is the minimum viable content for this complexity level, with 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-description baseline of 4 applies. There are no arguments whose meaning the description would need to disambiguate.

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 names a specific resource and scope ('jobs currently running on the Axcel account'), which tells an agent exactly what the call returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like axcel_job_status, axcel_history_list, or axcel_sequence_list, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must guess that this is the polling/list counterpart to axcel_job_status for a single job, which is only weakly implied by the plural phrasing.

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