aap_list_running_jobs

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the scope 'all currently running jobs' and specifies the return type as a JSON string, which adds context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the read-only hint.

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 two lines plus a compact docstring, front-loaded with the action. It uses no filler and each sentence serves a purpose.

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 single-parameter read-only list operation, the description covers the action, the parameter, and the return format. With annotations and an output schema present, this is sufficient context for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents the sole parameter include_workflow_jobs ('Also show running workflow jobs'), giving it meaning beyond the raw boolean type and default value.

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 opens with 'List all currently running jobs in AAP', a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aap_cancel_job and aap_get_job_output by focusing on listing running jobs.

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 retrieving running jobs but does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it. No explicit contrast with sibling tools such as aap_get_failed_jobs or aap_get_recent_activity is provided.

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