get_queue_length

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves queue length but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), potential rate limits, error conditions, or how it handles invalid device names. The description is minimal beyond the basic function.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured efficiently, though the formatting could be slightly more concise (e.g., integrating the parameter explanation into the main text). Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on return format beyond 'int'. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but gaps remain in guiding the agent effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter's semantics: 'name' is the device name, and if None, it uses the current device. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's basic type information, though it doesn't specify format constraints or examples.

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 states the specific action ('Retrieve') and resource ('queue length for a Sonos device'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_queue (which likely returns queue contents) or get_device_state (which returns broader state information). It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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. With siblings like get_queue (which might return queue items) and get_device_state (which might include queue length among other metrics), there's no indication of when this specific queue-length retrieval is preferred over other tools that might provide similar or overlapping information.

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