aktif_sorgular_blocking

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

No annotations provided, but description declares the tool as read-only ('Salt-okunur') and describes expected output. This is sufficient transparency for a read-only diagnostic query, though it could mention if the operation is lightweight.

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?

Two tight sentences: first enumerates output fields, second gives use case and safety. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output details, usage context, and safety (read-only). No 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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by describing the output fields and usage context, going well beyond the empty 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?

Description clearly states the tool displays current running queries and blocking chains with specific fields (session, blocker, wait type/duration, CPU, elapsed time, query text). The purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools (eksik_indexler, sunucu_sagligi) which cover missing indexes and server health.

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?

Explicitly states it's the first check for server slowness ('Sunucum neden yavas?' icin ilk bakilacak), providing clear context. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but context is strong enough.

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