CPersona

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying what status information is returned (pending tasks and retry configuration), though it omits details about pagination, rate limits, or the structure of the retry config object.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. The core action ('Get the status') leads immediately, followed by the target resource ('background task queue') and specific content details ('pending tasks, retry config') in parentheses. Every clause earns its place.

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's low complexity (zero parameters), presence of readOnly annotations, and implied simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the specific data points returned (pending tasks, retry config), compensating partially for the lack of an output schema, though it does not specify return format structure (object vs. array).

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately reflects this stateless, parameterless nature requiring no additional semantic explanation.

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 ('status of the background task queue') and clarifies scope with parenthetical details ('pending tasks, retry config'). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling 'check_health' tool, which could create ambiguity about which status-checking tool to use.

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 no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'check_health'), nor does it mention prerequisites, polling intervals, or error handling scenarios. It assumes the caller knows when queue inspection is appropriate.

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