rednote_queue_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: 'Read only' (safe, non-mutating) and 'Never touches the browser' (important for an automation suite that drives a browser). However it omits what 'recent' means, retention/window behavior, ordering, and the shape of outcomes, so it is only partially transparent.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with zero filler; the two trailing sentences both add behavioral value. It is tight and well-ordered, though it leaves the definition under-specified rather than truly complete.

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-optional-parameter tool this is roughly minimum viable: it says what is listed and that it is safe, but with no output schema the description should have described the return shape (statuses per queued write) and the meaning of 'recent'. Those gaps leave the agent guessing at results.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single `limit` parameter. The agent gets the constraint (max 50, exclusiveMinimum 0) from the schema, but no explanation of what limit controls, no default value, and no guidance on how it interacts with 'recent' — the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (list) and a specific resource (recent queued writes and their outcomes), which is clearly distinct from write siblings like rednote_create_post or state siblings like rednote_login_status. It stops short of naming which tool enqueues writes, so sibling differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied — you would call this to inspect outcomes of previously queued writes — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to any alternative tool. 'Read only' hints that it is a safe diagnostic call without stating the condition that selects it.

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