rundeck_list_running_executions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without details on authentication, pagination, or that it is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic listing action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It is concise, though extremely brief. No structure issues.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could mention that it returns a list of execution objects or include more context about the response. The omission of any behavioral details makes it borderline complete.

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 100% with the single 'project' parameter described as 'Project name'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 'List currently running executions in a project' clearly states the verb (List), the resource (currently running executions), and the scope (in a project). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rundeck_list_executions' (which likely lists all executions) and 'rundeck_get_execution' (single execution).

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 implies usage for listing only running executions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rundeck_list_executions' or 'rundeck_get_execution'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are provided.

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