get_celery_queue_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially meets it by disclosing the real performance trait 'May be slow for large queues'. It still omits the read-only nature, whether it touches or resolves tasks, and any pagination or timeout behavior, which matters for an operation the description itself warns can be slow.

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?

Three short declarative sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the performance warning following immediately after. Every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, payload, and cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers purpose, output shape at a high level, and a meaningful latency caveat; the remaining gap is sibling differentiation from get_celery_status.

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 per the baseline rubric the schema is the only concern and the description has nothing extra to document. There is no parameter-level ambiguity for the description to resolve.

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 and resource: 'Get per-task breakdown of the Celery queue', with the unit of granularity (per-task) distinguishing it from a generic status call. It does not, however, name or contrast with the closest siblings get_celery_status, purge_celery_queue, or purge_celery_task, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 and no named alternative. The description never explains how this differs from get_celery_status or when a task-level breakdown is preferable, leaving routing entirely to inference from the tool name.

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