get_running_timers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List every timer currently running' communicates a read-only, account-wide operation, but it does not disclose the return format, whether timer IDs are included, or any other operational detail. It is adequate but not rich.

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 focused sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action plus scope are front-loaded.

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 zero-argument list operation, the description is largely complete: it names the operation, the resource, and the scope ('in the account'). The lack of an output schema is not addressed, so the exact shape of the returned timer list is unspecified, but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to provide. With no parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing meaningful to add beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List every timer currently running in the account.' It uniquely identifies a specific read operation and distinguishes it from sibling timer-related tools like start_timer and stop_timer.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_time_report, start_timer, or stop_timer. There are no exclusions, conditions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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