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. It discloses that the tool returns queue state data, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, performance implications, or access requirements.

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 sentences, no fluff. Every word contributes to clarity and 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?

The description enumerates the data elements returned, which is helpful given no output schema. It is complete enough for a simple monitoring tool, but could further specify the structure or format.

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 100% with the port parameter described. The description adds value by advising to include the port when multiple instances run, giving practical usage context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool gets the current state of the multi-agent request queue and lists the data elements (total queued requests, active agents, per-agent queue depths, completed cache size). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unity_agents_list which likely lists agents without queue depth.

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 notes it is useful for monitoring when multiple agents are working on the same Unity project, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like unity_agents_list or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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