qwen_running

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint that only stream-transport runs are listed and print runs are excluded mid-run. It also lists the output fields, which adds transparency. It doesn't mention potential failure modes or permissions, but for a simple list operation this is adequate; a 4 reflects strong disclosure without being exhaustive.

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 three sentences of pure signal. The first sentence states the action and output fields, the second adds a critical scope constraint, and the third names the sibling alternative. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly: what it returns, the scope (stream-transport only), and the alternative for past runs. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers them 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter-specific detail because there is nothing to add, and it stays consistent with the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('qwen turns executing at this moment'), and names the exact fields returned (session id, working directory, elapsed time, messages sent). It also differentiates from the sibling qwen_sessions by stating 'For past sessions use qwen_sessions,' making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 explicitly states when to use it (to see currently executing qwen turns that qwen_send can reach) and when not to ('Only stream-transport runs appear; 'print' runs are unreachable mid-run'). It also names the alternative for past sessions (qwen_sessions). This gives clear guidance with no inference required.

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