queue_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the value that results are broken down by queue stage and by priority/outcome, but says nothing about freshness, cost, or whether counts are live.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core concept (counts across the pipeline) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the trailing breakdown list is dense.

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 covering return shape and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey scope; it does so by enumerating the counted dimensions. Nothing critical to calling it is missing, though the lack of routing against siblings is the one gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4 per the rubric.

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 (counts) and the resources it aggregates (inbox, pending review by priority, outbox, logged decisions by outcome). An agent can tell it is a status/summary tool, though it never names or differentiates itself from the siblings (pending_items, recent_decisions, search_decisions).

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The agent must infer that this is the summary tool versus the listing tools (pending_items, recent_decisions) purely from the word 'counts' and the sibling names.

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