get_job_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the payload shape: pending items in order plus the started/paused state flag, which is not derivable from the empty parameter schema.

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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the two concrete pieces of information returned. No filler, no repetition of the tool name's obvious meaning.

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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and safety annotations supplied, the description only needs to say what the call returns and why it exists — which it does. A brief pointer to control_job_queue for acting on the state would have made it fully complete.

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 clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Names the specific resource (the pending job queue) and states the two things it reports: what is lined up next and whether the queue is started or paused. This distinguishes it from get_job_status (current print) and control_job_queue (mutating queue state), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the closely related queue tools (queue_jobs, remove_queued_jobs, control_job_queue, get_job_status). An agent must infer from the name and the phrase 'started or paused' that this is the read-only inspection step before controlling the queue.

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