get_queue_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists the returned data, which is helpful. However, it says nothing about error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether any side effects occur, so some transparency gap remains.

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?

The description is a single, tightly scoped sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, data returned, and parameter scope without fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately covers the key aspects: what metrics are returned and how scope is controlled. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by listing the metrics, though it does not describe the return format (e.g., object structure) or failure modes, which would improve completeness.

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 input schema already provides a full description for the single 'queue' parameter (100% coverage), including the behavior when omitted. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it does not elevate the baseline.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('queue status'), listing concrete metrics (queue depth, failed job count, oldest job age) and scope ('all queues or a specific queue'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cron_status or get_horizon_status, which target different resources.

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 guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The only usage nuance is the optional 'queue' parameter, which the schema also communicates. The description does not provide context to help an agent decide between this and sibling status tools.

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