get_queue_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the call is cheap and does not hash model artifacts. It leaves out whether the operation is strictly read-only, whether it may touch a running generation, or what the returned state contains, so the safety and cost profile is only partially covered.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing "without hashing model artifacts" clause is meaningful contrast but is written as jargon only intelligible once the sibling tools are known.

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?

A zero-argument read tool is simple enough that a short description is defensible, and no output schema exists to carry return-value information. However, the description never states what queue or resource fields come back, which is the main thing a polling agent needs before calling.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The single caveat is that no arguments at all means the caller cannot scope the query, which the description does not acknowledge.

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?

"Read lightweight queue and resource state" gives a verb and a rough resource, but "resource state" is vague and the description never distinguishes this from close siblings like get_batch_status or get_generation_status. The clause about not hashing model artifacts hints at a scope difference without naming what the tool actually reports.

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?

Usage is only implied: "lightweight" and "without hashing model artifacts" suggest this is the cheap polling option rather than the artifact-hashing status tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing rule from a single adjective and a contrast clause.

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