bookshelf_get_queue_status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the return contents (counts and warnings), but does not elaborate on the meaning of 'full count' or any rate limits/authorization requirements. No contradiction.

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, compact sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without filler. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema (which handles return-value documentation), the description provides sufficient context for a simple status endpoint. It could clarify what 'warnings' refers to, but the output schema compensates.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain any input semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because the tool requires no configuration.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get'), a resource ('queue statistics'), and the exact contents ('total/full count and warnings'). It is distinguishable from sibling queue tools like list_queue or get_queue_details by focusing on aggregate statistics rather than itemized data, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many queue-related siblings (list_queue, get_queue_details, delete_queue, etc.). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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