Get queue info

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

Annotations only cover read-only/open-world, so the description carries real weight here: it states the admin-token requirement and the 403 failure mode, and pre-describes the full shape of the response (queue state, counts, per-task fields). This is richer behavioral disclosure than the annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the diagnostic purpose and the auth caveat. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers the auth prerequisite and error behavior. Nothing needed to call or interpret this single-parameter read tool is missing.

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% and the sole 'instance' parameter is already documented with valid values ('Configured instances: default'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Shows the instance's task queue') and immediately enumerates the exact contents: paused state, worker counts, and per-task pending/waiting/running status plus name, repo_id, pipeline_number, agent, labels. An agent can distinguish this queue-inspection tool from list_* and get_pipeline siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete diagnostic use case ('explain why a pipeline is stuck pending') and the three conditions it can reveal (no matching agent labels, paused queue, saturated workers). It stops short of naming alternatives such as diagnose_pipeline, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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