appwrite_health_queue

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses return values (queue sizes and processing status) which compensates for missing output schema, but fails to mention safety (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Two sentences, appropriately front-loaded with action and resource. Slightly unusual '[UNIFIED]' prefix but overall efficient structure without redundant 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?

For a single-parameter tool, description is minimally viable. It compensates for missing output schema by describing return values, but fails to document the required parameter, leaving a significant gap in usability.

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% (no description for 'site' parameter) and the description adds no parameter semantics. The required 'site' parameter is completely undocumented—agent cannot know if this expects a URL, ID, or name without guessing.

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 specific action (Check) and resource (queue health status), clearly distinguishing from sibling health tools (cache, db, storage, time) by specifying 'queue'. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is opaque but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus other health check siblings (e.g., appwrite_health_check vs appwrite_health_queue) or prerequisites for the 'site' parameter. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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