battle_queue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that continuation pages are not auto-fetched, arrays are truncated at 100 rows/256 KiB with reports, oversized records are refused, fields may be null, and wire types remain JSON-encoded strings. This goes far beyond a basic read description.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then provides dense, useful caveats. It is slightly verbose with boilerplate such as 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied,' which is confusing given the one-parameter schema, and it has a missing period after 'Makes one logical GET request.'

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers nullability, wire-format behavior, request nature, pagination, local limits, truncation reporting, refusal behavior, and policy/upstream constraints. For a one-parameter read-only endpoint, an agent has enough context to call correctly and interpret results safely.

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 schema only exposes username with minLength 1, and the description calls it 'explicit username' and notes that required inputs reflect tool policy/upstream requirements. It does not add much semantic detail beyond the parameter name, but for a single self-describing parameter this is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the existing battle queue records for an explicit username.' It also clarifies what it is not ('does not join a queue or submit a team'), distinguishing it from battle-queue mutation tools and from siblings like battle_status or battle_result.

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 gives clear context: use this to read queue records for a particular username, not to perform mutations. It explicitly excludes queue-joining and team-submission behavior. It does not name a specific alternative sibling, but the negative instruction is enough to route an agent correctly.

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