get_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output is a 'compact summary' and adds context that stalled/failed imports surface in trackedDownloadStatus/statusMessages. However, it does not explain pagination behavior, default filtering, or whether completed items appear in the list, so behavioral expectations remain partially unclear.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-lodes the primary action and output scope, the second adds relevant status detail. No wasted words.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a useful overview but lacks important contextual elements. It does not differentiate from get_queue_status, does not describe the full response shape, and does not clarify default status inclusions. Schema fill some gaps, but the tool's role among sibling queue tools remains ambiguous.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, and does not clarify protocol or sort_direction enums. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because schema does most of the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List the download queue as a compact summary' with specific content details (downloading progress, remaining time, import warnings/errors). This is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_queue_status, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_queue_status, remove_queue_items, or grab_queue_items. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer when a compact queue summary is appropriate.

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