queue_runtime_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a meaningful behavioral guarantee for a compute/report tool, and it discloses what statistics are calculated. It does not address edge cases like an empty queue or no current track, but for a simple read-only reporting tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core purpose, lists the computed metrics, and ends with the important 'Read-only' qualifier. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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, read-only statistics tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is computed and confirms safety. The main gap is that it does not define behavior when there is no current track or an empty queue, which could matter given 'time remaining on the current track' is part of the output.

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 single response_format parameter is fully documented in the input schema with its enum values and descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Compute'), a clear resource ('runtime statistics for the upcoming queue'), and enumerates the exact metrics produced: total, average, longest, shortest items, and time remaining on the current track. The 'Read-only' qualifier further separates it from queue-mutating siblings like add_to_queue or queue_duplicate_check.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need aggregate runtime statistics about the upcoming queue. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related queue-inspection tools such as describe_queue, get_queue_snapshot, or queue_profile, nor does it state when not to use it.

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