get_active_queries

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds useful context about what types of queries are shown (running, long-running, blocked, idle transactions) and the real-time monitoring aspect, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'active' specifically means operationally.

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement, bulleted list of what it shows, and a 'Useful for' section - all in 7 concise sentences that each earn their place. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 read-only monitoring tool with good annotations and full parameter coverage, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned and use cases. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format (e.g., structured data vs plain text, typical fields included).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currently active queries in MySQL'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on real-time monitoring rather than historical analysis (unlike get_slow_queries) or specific analysis types (unlike analyze_query).

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 'Useful for' section provides clear context about when to use this tool (identifying performance issues, finding blocking transactions, real-time monitoring), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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