erlc_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that this is a read-only operation, no rate-limit or auth notes, and no indication of what the queue payload contains. 'Current' hints at a live snapshot but that is the only behavioral signal.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument read, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits the shape of the returned queue (player count, entries, identifiers) and the v1-vs-v2 distinction. An agent could call it correctly but cannot anticipate the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is lost.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('queue'), and the 'API v2' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling erlc_v1_queue. It is clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explain why an agent would pick v2 over v1.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternative despite the obvious erlc_v1_queue sibling. The only implicit signal is the 'API v2' label, which a reader must interpret themselves.

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