check_queue_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so partly: it declares the operation read-only, discloses that the queue persists across host restarts, and describes what a detail response contains (carbon receipt with estimated vs. actual grams, grid_source, energy_source). It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or output volume, but covers the important traits.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the no-argument case is stated first, then the task_id case, then the safety tag. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation block, so the description must explain returns, and it does reasonably well by naming the summary scope and the carbon-receipt fields. It is close to complete for a one-parameter read tool, lacking only auth/permission context.

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 100%, and the task_id property already documents the summary-vs-detail switch, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this slightly by naming the extra fields returned for a single task, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint information 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report on the ebb-ai task queue') and clearly separates the two modes of operation (summary vs. single-task detail). No sibling tool reports on queue state, so it is easily distinguished from get_grid_forecast, schedule_task, or cancel_task.

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 explains both call shapes but frames them as parameter behavior rather than as a decision rule. It never states when an agent should check queue status versus using siblings like retry_task or cancel_task, so usage is only implied.

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