co_process_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, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the semantic detail of what the status reflects, but it does not mention behavior such as caching, staleness, or whether the response is a snapshot. No contradiction exists.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key information. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is almost complete: it states what is measured and what is reported. The only minor gap is the exact representation of 'jobs still pending' (e.g., count vs. list), but since there is no output schema and no input requirements, this is a small omission.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, it does not need to add anything further.

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 clearly identifies the resource (the processing queue) and the specific metric (current depth and pending jobs). It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets,' but the intent is unambiguous and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like co_status by naming the queue specifically.

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 monitoring queue state, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus co_status or other siblings, and it offers no exclusions or alternatives. The use case is inferable but not stated.

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