unity_queue_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: it clarifies ephemeral state ('Reset on reload'), explains each metric's meaning (admission, cost/evictions, backlog, file limits/failures), and warns 'Accounted bytes are not heap usage'. These are non-obvious behavioral facts not found in the schema, though it never explicitly confirms the tool is a read-only probe.

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?

It is short and every phrase is information-bearing, but it reads as a compressed fragment list of jargon rather than front-loaded prose. A leading clause stating what the tool reports would improve scannability without adding length.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must substitute for one; it partially does by enumerating the returned metric groups (http, httpCommands, completedResults, historyNotifications, historyPersistence, serverAgentState). Still missing is any indication of the response shape or how the categories relate, leaving the agent to discover the output empirically.

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?

There is one parameter (port) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully, including the 'always include it when multiple instances run' note. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names the resource (queue depths, agents, results) and enumerates metric groups, so an agent can infer this is a queue/diagnostics info tool. However it is a telegraphic noun list with no verb and no differentiation from sibling info tools like unity_editor_state or unity_agents_list. Purpose is recoverable but not crisply stated.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. 'Reset on reload' is a behavioral property, not usage guidance. The agent must guess whether this is for debugging, monitoring, or admission-control tuning.

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