List Active Commands

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful coverage boundary — service- and role-level commands are absent from the results — which prevents an agent from mistaking this for a complete inventory. It says nothing about permissions, freshness/latency of the 'active' snapshot, or result volatility, so it is only partially transparent for an unannotated read tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope statement and rounded out with the exclusion plus the redirect to the sibling. Every clause carries information; the only minor cost is the abrupt mix of default-scope and exclusion in adjacent clauses.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting return values, the description supplies the two things structure cannot: the granularity boundary and the default scope. Only the identifier format for `cluster` and the freshness of the snapshot remain undocumented.

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 single `cluster` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description bears the load. It does convey the semantics of omission (CM-global is the default) and that supplying a cluster narrows to that cluster, which is real added meaning. It does not address accepted identifier forms (cluster name vs. display name) or error behavior for an unknown cluster.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list running commands) and pins the scope: single-level only, CM-global by default or scoped to one cluster. It also names what is explicitly excluded (commands fired directly on a service or role) and points at the sibling that covers that case, so an agent can separate it from list_running_commands without reading either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (quick single-level picture, CM-global default) and when-not-to-use (anything needing the full view, execution time, or stuck-command detection), naming list_running_commands as the alternative and the exact features that select it. Nothing is left to inference.

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