get_queue

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld safety, but the description adds substantive behavior: unknown downloads are hidden and only counted unless include_unknown=true, and stalled downloads are flagged with stall_reason and treated as problems even when the service reports healthy. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious semantics an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and state model, then filtering rules, then examples. Generally tight, though the stall-detection sentence is dense and the parenthetical list runs long; still, every clause carries signal.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are rightly omitted. The description covers filtering semantics, stall/problem classification, and default hiding of unknown downloads, giving an agent enough to call and interpret the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining the real consequence of include_unknown (visibility vs. mere counting) and clarifying what counts as a problem for only_problems, going beyond the schema's terse hints.

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 resource (download queue) with the tracked states it exposes, plus indexer and download client context. An agent immediately understands this differs from plain history or library tools.

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 concrete example questions ('What's stuck in the queue and why?') that signal intended usage, and explains the include_unknown and stall conditions that shape results. It does not, however, name sibling alternatives such as find_stalled_downloads or diagnose_import, leaving some routing to inference.

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