queue_list_rate_limited_modules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a useful limitation (only a count, not module names) and the trigger condition (circuit-breaker tripped). However, it does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only, has side effects, or any performance expectations. As a 'list' operation it is likely safe, but that is not stated, so the description is only partially transparent.

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 a single run-on sentence with multiple clauses and asides, making it structurally messy. Phrases like 'surfaced as part of the same queue-status data queue_status() returns, exposed here as its own discoverable tool' are redundant and convoluted. It could be split into clearer, more concise sentences without losing meaning. It's not overly long, but the structure harms readability.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must specify the return format. It says 'only a count is available' but does not state how that count is returned (e.g., a JSON object with a 'count' field or a plain integer). It also does not explicitly mention the result when no modules are rate-limited (presumably 0). While it references queue_status as a source, the description is not fully self-contained for an agent without prior knowledge of that tool's output.

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 zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4 on this dimension. Since there are no parameters, the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning, and none is needed. The baseline is appropriate and nothing detracts from it.

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 the tool's purpose: it returns the count of scanner modules currently rate-limited by an external target's API. It explicitly distinguishes itself from queue_status by being a focused, discoverable tool for the common 'is anything rate-limited right now' question, and it notes the limitation that only a count is available, not module names. This is specific, unambiguous, and easily separable from sibling tools.

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 clear usage context: it is intended for the frequent question of whether anything is rate-limited, and it mentions that the data is part of the same queue-status data that queue_status() returns. This implies that for a full status report, one would use queue_status, while this tool is for a quick count. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of queue_status when you only need the count,' leaving a small gap.

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