Queue stats

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating 'using the backend's own state names', which warns that state names are backend-specific (asynq vs bullmq). However, it does not disclose error behavior when the queue is missing or missing backend parameter, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable.

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 a single sentence of 13 words that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description could have briefly mentioned that the output is a mapping from state names to counts. However, the tool is simple (2 params, 1 required), and the core purpose is clear. The absence of output details is a minor gap but not critical.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the schema. It implicitly references the 'queue' parameter but does not add meaning or context for the 'backend' parameter (e.g., when it is optional).

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource: 'number of jobs in each state for a queue'. It also notes 'using the backend's own state names', which adds precision and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_jobs or get_job that deal with individual jobs rather than aggregate state counts.

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 implies usage for obtaining queue statistics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_jobs or list_queues. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_job or retry_job.

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