Up next queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral context beyond that: the ordering rule (saved order first, then unordered games by score) and the inclusion of per-game notes. With annotations carrying the read-only signal, a 3 is the appropriate level for this incremental detail.

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 tagged structure (<use_case>, <important_notes>, <example>) front-loads the purpose and keeps each line substantive. Every sentence either defines the resource or routes to a sibling; nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the ordering semantics are disclosed. The only remaining gap is edge-case behavior (e.g. an empty Up next lane), which is minor for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly stays silent rather than padding.

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 resource ('The Up next lane (queue, play soon)') and states what is returned ('with each game's note'), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the main read sibling backlog_get_overview, leaving that separation to inference.

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 important_notes section routes the agent explicitly for mutations: ordering changes go to backlog_reorder_next, membership changes to backlog_set_lane. What's missing is guidance on when to call this versus backlog_get_overview or backlog_suggest_picks, so usage context is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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