get_queue_snapshot

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 declare 'Read-only', which is valuable. It also indicates the output includes runtime data. Missing is any note about how max_results may cap 'full upcoming queue' or whether the total runtime covers only returned tracks, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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-loads the core purpose and read-only nature in the first sentence. The second sentence about sibling tools is useful but slightly awkwardly phrased ('Also covers' could mislead), preventing a perfect score.

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 simple read-only tool with only optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, safety property, and sibling relationships. The ambiguity in the cross-reference line and the lack of detail about output shape (though hinted by 'per-track runtime and total queue runtime') keep it just shy of complete.

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%: both max_results and response_format have explicit descriptions including defaults and enum meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('full upcoming queue'), and adds distinguishing detail ('per-track runtime and the total queue runtime'). It also directly references sibling tools (get_queue, describe_queue), making differentiation easy without opening their schemas.

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 points to alternatives via 'raw queue via get_queue, enriched view via describe_queue' and 'See also: get_queue, describe_queue', giving the agent context for when those might be preferred. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this tool when X' or include a strong exclusion, so guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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