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 and does add operational context: the ' (1 read) / (2 if include_context resolves playlist/album name)' conveys cost and the conditional extra GET triggered by include_context. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as empty-queue or no-active-playback handling, and the read-only guarantee is only implied by the word 'read' rather than stated.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the first summarizes the core output, the second captures the cost model. 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 queue-reading tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the output contents and the cost model, and the three optional parameters are fully documented in the schema. But it omits edge cases (empty queue, no active playback) and does not clarify how this relates to get_queue or get_queue_snapshot, which an agent would need to call it reliably.

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% and each parameter is already well documented (max_results with env-based default, include_context with 'extra GET', response_format with per-value meanings), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'source context label' only weakly echoes what include_context resolves and adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific deliverable — an 'enriched queue view' — and enumerates its contents (currently playing, up-next, durations, total remaining, source context label), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many queue-related siblings (get_queue, get_queue_snapshot, peek_next, get_context_inspect), relying on the word 'enriched' and the feature list to carry the distinction.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided — the description never mentions get_queue, get_queue_snapshot, or peek_next, nor the conditions that would select this tool over them. Given dozens of queue-related siblings, an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over a raw queue fetch.

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