Show queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' and 'current' imply a non-mutating, state-reading operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose truncation/limit behavior, output shape, or whether the queue state is session-specific.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

This is a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, so the one-line description is close to adequate. However, it misses the semantic role of limit and gives no hint about the returned queue structure, leaving an agent to infer important invocation details.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50%; the limit parameter has no semantic description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain its effect (e.g., truncating the returned queue). The description only loosely reinforces the player parameter already documented in the schema.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('current play queue (playlist)') and target ('for a player'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like queue_edit (editing) and now_playing (current track).

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as now_playing or queue_edit. The description implies a read-only queue view but does not provide explicit selection criteria or exclusions.

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