yeastar_get_queue_agent_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that this is a read with no side effects ('does not log an agent in, out, or change their pause state') and that it returns current state per agent. It could add response shape or failure behavior, but it is adequately transparent for a simple read tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful side-effect clarification and a prerequisite. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the return concept (per-agent login/pause/busy states), the required input (a queue ID), and the non-mutating behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming the exact source tool, yeastar_list_queues, which is more actionable than the schema's generic 'corresponding list tool'.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('current login/pause/busy state of each agent in a queue'). It also clarifies that it is a read operation and does not change agent state, which distinguishes it from state-mutating tools and from the sibling yeastar_get_queue_call_status.

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 usage context: use it to read the current agent statuses, not to log agents in/out or change pause state. It also states the required prerequisite of obtaining an ID from yeastar_list_queues. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the usage boundary is clear.

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