List Active Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is to disclose the operation's cost and side effects, and it does: nodes are polled, the call can take seconds, and URL query values are stripped. It does not say what happens to nodes that fail to respond, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and where it comes from, then the use case, then the latency caveat. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and discloses latency and URL scrubbing. Only the handling of non-responding nodes is left unstated, which is minor for a read-only listing call.

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%, so the schema itself already documents limit, query, instance and timeout_seconds. The description implies why timeout_seconds matters when it warns the call can take seconds, but it adds no syntax or semantics beyond that.

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 plus scope: list transactions running now across every responding cluster node, and names the fields returned (user, age, type, state, URL). It implicitly separates itself from kill_transaction by describing itself as the diagnostic step, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"For finding a stuck or runaway request" gives a clear use case that an agent can match against a user's intent. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent must infer for itself when to reach for query_table or kill_transaction instead.

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