queue_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the one non-obvious behavior, that an empty queue yields NO_REPLY. It says nothing about ordering, whether results are counts or full concert records, or freshness of the queue.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The NO_REPLY instruction is compressed to the point of being cryptic about what triggers it, but nothing is padded.

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 no-param, read-only, no-output-schema tool this is nearly sufficient; the remaining gap is the exact semantics of NO_REPLY (when it is returned and why it must be echoed verbatim), which is stated as a rule without explanation.

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?

Zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; the description correctly confirms 'Takes no parameters', matching the empty schema and preventing an agent from inventing filter arguments.

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 and resource: lists concerts awaiting the weekly setlist.fm check, which distinguishes it from setlist_find and the other siblings. The name queue_status alone is vague, but the description resolves that.

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 context of the weekly setlist.fm check implies this is the 'what's pending' query, but it never says when to call it versus setlist_find or teaser_playlist, nor any exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

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