line_queue_health

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds real value beyond the annotation by disclosing the content of the report (per-status counts, staleness of the oldest pending job, stuck-processing detection), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating thresholds or auth requirements.

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 with no filler: the first defines the resource and its metrics, the second gives the action trigger. The scope is front-loaded and 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what the agent needs: what the tool reports and when to reach for it. No required parameter or return-value detail 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 takes zero parameters (empty object schema), so there is no parameter semantics to convey. Per the rubric, the zero-parameter case earns the baseline 4.

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 resource (the webhook job queue, line_jobs) and enumerates exactly what health means here: status counts, oldest pending job age, and jobs stuck in processing. It separates itself from line_failed_jobs only implicitly through the 'use this first' framing rather than by naming the sibling, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this first when users say the bot is not replying,' which is exactly the diagnostic context an agent needs. It does not state when not to use it or name the follow-up alternatives (e.g., line_failed_jobs, line_retry_job), so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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