Read the content queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the authentication requirement ("Needs a secret key (wv_sk_) carrying the pipeline:read scope"), which is useful operational context. It also explains the source enum semantics (manual, content_gap, competitor_seed) and the priority ordering, going beyond what annotations provide. The statement "Read only. Nothing is changed" reinforces but does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: purpose, item composition, and auth requirement. No wasted words, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct value.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the queue is, the meaning of items, source types, and priority order. It omits any mention of the `status` filter, but the schema enum largely covers that. The schema already documents pagination for limit/cursor, so no redundancy needed. Overall, it is nearly complete, just missing a hint about the optional `status` filter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description adds meaning to the `source` parameter by explaining the enum values (manual, content_gap, competitor_seed), which is absent from the schema. However, it does not explain the `status` enum or add anything to `limit`/`cursor` beyond what their schema descriptions already say. Since it compensates for only one of the two undocumented params, a middle score is appropriate.

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+resource: "Read the content queue" and defines exactly what the queue contains ("what the engine plans to write, highest priority first"). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_pipeline_status and list_pipeline_runs, which concern pipeline execution rather than the queue content.

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: it is a read-only operation on the content queue, with items ranked by priority. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is obvious from the purpose and the sibling tool set. No exclusion cases are mentioned, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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