SABnzbd: Queue

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

Annotations are absent, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns queue data (in-progress jobs, speeds, ETAs), which is read-only. No mention of authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects, but the operation is simple and safe.

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 sentence that efficiently front-loads the key information (verb, resource, and purpose). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that it retrieves the default server's queue, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per guidelines, 0 parameters merits a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'current SABnzbd download queue', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like sabnzbd_history (completed downloads) and qbittorrent tools (different client).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., sabnzbd_history or qbittorrent_list_torrents). The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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