queue_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (state, counts, tasks) but does not state that it is non-destructive or read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a status tool, this is a notable gap.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists the specific data points returned. No redundant phrases or filler; it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 parameterless status query with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the three main output categories (active state, counts, Celery tasks). It is sufficient for an agent to understand what information will be available, though it does not detail formatting or error behavior, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist; no improvements are needed.

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 returns the current queue state: active status, queued/running counts, and Celery task details. It uses specific terminology ('paused/resumed', 'queued/running target counts', 'active/reserved Celery tasks') and is scoped to the API key's tenant. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool but the purpose is distinguishable from mutation tools like queue_pause or queue_resume.

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 context is implied: it is a read-only inspection tool among queue-management siblings. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. An agent could infer it is for status checks, but explicit guidance is missing.

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