queue_duplicate_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and describes the reporting behavior (duplicate groups, positions, wasted runtime), which discloses the safety profile and the main side-effect boundary. It does not go into auth or edge cases, but for a read-only check this is adequate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The 'Read-only' sentence earns its place as a clear safety qualifier.

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 one-parameter tool, the description captures the core behavior and output shape: duplicate groups, positions, and wasted runtime. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about empty-queue behavior or how positions are counted could help, but the essential information is present.

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 sole parameter response_format is fully described in the schema with an enum and default, so schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline 3 applies because the description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but none is 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('upcoming queue') with a defined outcome: duplicate tracks/episodes with positions and wasted runtime. The queue scope clearly separates it from sibling playlist-duplicate tools such as find_duplicates_in_playlist and find_duplicate_tracks_across_playlists.

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 makes the queue context clear and labels the operation read-only, but it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this over the many duplicate-detection siblings. Usage is implied by the name and 'upcoming queue' rather than stated with exclusions or alternative tool names.

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