queue_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool reports live status, progress, and budget spend, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions are required, or how frequently it can be polled.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple status-checking tool, it explains what information is returned at a high level (status, progress, budget spend). However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should also mention the optional 'project' parameter and clarify the safe, read-only nature of the operation to be fully complete.

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 only parameter, 'project', has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The agent must infer its meaning and default behavior from the parameter name alone, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names the resource and sub-resources clearly: live job queue status, progress, and budget spend. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_budget, but the purpose is otherwise unmistakable.

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?

It provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_budget or run_verb. The phrase 'Inspect live job queue status' only implies monitoring usage, leaving the agent to infer the circumstances for invoking it.

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