describe_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a read operation ('🟢 1 read' or '🟡 2 reads') and that include_context may trigger an extra GET to resolve a playlist/album name. It does not fully describe return shape or error behavior, but the cost and conditional request behavior are meaningful additions.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the ending is redundant: 'Also covers: raw queue via get_queue, snapshot via get_queue_snapshot' is followed by the same information in 'See also: get_queue, get_queue_snapshot'. This repetition prevents it from being tightly structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return content, and it does list key output fields. However, it does not describe how response_format changes the output, how max_results limits results, or what the 'source context label' consists of. These are notable gaps for an agent that must decide how to call the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats what the schema already says about include_context ('resolves playlist/album name') and adds no new parameter-specific meaning for max_results or response_format beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Enriched queue view' and names specific output content: currently playing, up-next, durations, total remaining, and source context label. It distinguishes itself from get_queue and get_queue_snapshot by positioning those as raw and snapshot alternatives, though the phrasing is not as crisp as a direct contrast.

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 hints at differentiation by mentioning 'raw queue via get_queue' and 'snapshot via get_queue_snapshot', so it implies when describe_queue is preferable. However, it never states explicit conditions like 'use describe_queue for enriched summary, get_queue for raw items'.

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