get_session_longops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only in-progress operations are returned and that each row carries progress percentage and ETA, but says nothing about privilege requirements (V$ views typically need elevated access), row volume, or read-only safety beyond the implicit 'List'.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the source view and scope lead, and the filter/visibility constraint follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers source, scope, return content (progress %, ETA), and filtering. The only meaningful gap is the absence of privilege/pagination context, which is minor for a V$ monitoring query.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Optional session id (SID) filter.' The description's 'Optional sid filter' merely restates the schema, adding no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (long-running operations) and names the exact source view V$SESSION_LONGOPS, plus concrete examples (backups, stats gathering, long queries). An agent can distinguish this from monitoring siblings like list_active_sessions or get_wait_events without opening the 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?

The description implies usage (in-progress operation monitoring) and notes the optional sid narrowing filter, but never states when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as list_active_sessions or get_session_sql_text, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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