current_ops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of permissions, connection requirements, pagination, or how results are ordered or limited.

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 sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is a parenthetical field list rather than a front-loaded statement of the tool's action, which weakens its structure as a tool description.

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?

With three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should explain active_only and min_seconds and clarify the tool's relationship to kill_op. Instead it only enumerates some output fields, leaving key invocation details missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it instead lists output fields (opid, op, namespace, seconds running, client, command summary) that do not correspond to the input parameters (connection, active_only, min_seconds). It provides no meaning for any of the three parameters.

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 'Running operations (opid, op, namespace, seconds running, client, command summary)' implies listing currently running operations, but it lacks a clear verb and reads as a field inventory rather than a definition of purpose. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like kill_op or server_status, leaving the agent to infer the action.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kill_op or server_status. The only implied context is the word 'running', which is insufficient to route an agent among many sibling tools.

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