Astra: read the play queue

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral details: the tool is served from the live event stream when connected, and Astra only publishes the first 200 queue entries, truncating longer queues. These are valuable insights not covered by annotations, enhancing the agent's understanding of tool behavior.

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?

The description is concise at three sentences, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, hinting at parameter/identifier usage, and disclosing an important limitation. It is front-loaded with the primary action and has no redundant filler.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers the purpose, behavior, live-streaming aspect, truncation limitation, and cross-reference to the editing sibling, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'limit' parameter (including default, min, max, and description). The description adds some context by explaining why the maximum is 200, but this is supplemental rather than required. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'List the tracks in the Astra play queue, in order, with the currently playing one marked.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Astra play queue'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing users to astra_queue_edit for modifications.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (viewing the queue) and even gives an alternative for editing ('pass that to astra_queue_edit'). However, it does not explicitly state any exclusions or contrast with similar read tools like astra_now_playing, so it slightly misses the 'when-not' guidance for a 5.

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