get_running_vacuum_operations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a monitoring/read-only tool (implied by 'monitor', 'show', 'display'), provides real-time status, and explicitly prohibits write/control operations. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no operations are running.

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 uses clear section headers ([Tool Purpose], [Exact Functionality], etc.) which aids structure, but it's verbose with some redundancy (e.g., 'Returns' section repeats functionality). Some sentences could be more concise while maintaining clarity.

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 the tool's monitoring purpose, single optional parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, functionality, use cases, prohibitions, parameter meaning, and return value description. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structure.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter's semantics: 'Target database name (shows operations in all databases if omitted)'. This adds crucial context beyond the schema's basic type information, though it doesn't specify format constraints or examples.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'Monitor currently running VACUUM and ANALYZE operations in real-time' with specific verbs (monitor, show, display, identify, provide) and resources (VACUUM, ANALYZE, REINDEX operations). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_vacuum_analyze_stats' by focusing on real-time active operations rather than historical statistics.

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 provides explicit 'Required Use Cases' (e.g., when user requests running VACUUM, troubleshooting slow operations) and 'Strictly Prohibited Use Cases' (e.g., terminating processes, starting new operations). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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