ytptube_live_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds the 'in-memory' context which is useful, but does not explain return format or behavior beyond the basic read. This aligns with the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read-only nature and rich annotations, the description covers the core purpose. However, the unexplained 'limit' parameter and lack of any output details make it not fully complete. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 has one parameter 'limit' with no description (0% coverage), and the description fails to mention it at all. Since the description must compensate for missing schema documentation and does not, the agent has no insight into what 'limit' controls in relation to 'progress and counts'.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a read operation for 'current in-memory queue progress and counts' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate between sibling tools like queue_control, so it lacks the explicit distinction found in top-tier examples.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as queue_control or list_tasks. It merely states what it does without any contextual 'use this when' or 'instead of' clarifications.

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