get_render_queue

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered. The description adds no further behavioral context (auth needs, whether the queue is per-editor-session, refresh semantics), only the return shape.

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: the first front-loads what the tool does, the second documents the return payload. Nothing is redundant and 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the full response shape (per-job fields plus queue_job_count), which is the main thing an agent needs for a zero-param list tool. It stops short of noting whether the result is scoped to the current editor session.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits any parameter discussion rather than inventing inputs.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('jobs currently in the editor Movie Render Queue'), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the render-job siblings (create_render_job, cancel_render_job), but the resource is unambiguous.

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 versus the other render-job tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'currently in the editor' implicitly scopes it to live editor queue state rather than persisted job history, which is the only usage signal present.

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