tool_observer_in_flight_count

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes the tool as non-destructive and purely diagnostic. Could explicitly state it's read-only, but the description is sufficient.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with important information. No redundant words.

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 no-parameter, simple diagnostic tool, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., plain number or JSON). Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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?

No parameters required. Schema coverage is 100% (0 params). Description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'in-flight' (started but not completed), which helps the agent understand the metric.

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?

Description clearly states it's a diagnostic that returns the number of in-flight (started but not yet completed) tool-call observations. Uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling observation tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned. However, as a diagnostic tool, its usage is implied for monitoring. Lacks guidance on when not to use or comparison with similar tools like 'health' or 'diag'.

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