ecosystem_shallow_queue_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does well: it lists the exact return fields, explains the meaning of the self_learning_pending map, and even discloses the threshold behavior (a class becomes eligible once count reaches 3). This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple status read.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Returns section is a slightly verbose but useful structured enumeration of output fields. Each sentence earns its place, though the prose-like Returns block could be tightened into a compact list format.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It documents the purpose, the output fields, and the non-obvious semantics of self_learning_pending. The presence of an output schema means the return-value structure is already encoded elsewhere, and the description supplements it with meaning (the threshold rule). Given the tool's simplicity, nothing essential is missing.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties: false). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4 per the rubric, and the description goes further by thoroughly documenting the return value structure, effectively compensating for any ambiguity about what the tool produces. This exceeds the baseline.

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 what the tool does: 'Show Stage 0 shallow-scan queue status for the active project.' It names the specific resource (shallow-scan queue) and scope (active project). Among siblings like ecosystem_scan_status, ecosystem_summary_health, and ecosystem_repo_manual_status, it distinguishes itself by focusing specifically on the shallow-scan queue status, though it doesn't explicitly name the distinguishing sibling.

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 implies this is the go-to tool for checking shallow-scan queue status ('Show Stage 0 shallow-scan queue status'), which allows an agent to infer when to use it. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions vs. siblings like ecosystem_scan_status or ecosystem_summary_health, which could cover related informational needs.

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