Get Render Queue Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that it fails closed with a named capability error when the queue-status method is unavailable, though it does not elaborate on rate limits or return timing.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It puts the primary purpose first and appends the fallback behavior efficiently.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, the external dependency, and the failure mode, leaving return details to the output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed because the input schema is empty.

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 (Report) and resource (Adobe Media Encoder queue running state), and it clearly distinguishes this status-read tool from siblings like add_to_render_queue or start_batch_encode. The fail-closed condition is an additional distinguishing detail that an agent can use for selection.

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 tool's intended context is clear: use it to report the AME queue running state, with a named fallback if this Premiere build lacks the underlying method. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions beyond the capability fallback.

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