get_queue_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only inspection operation and describes the returned data. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or empty-queue behavior, but for a simple status-read tool the operational behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then lists return contents and the only argument. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args section is clearly formatted.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present. The description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and what the optional parameter means, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema only shows channel_id as an optional string/null with a default of null. The description adds real meaning by explaining it is a channel UUID or slug used to filter the queue status. Since there is only one parameter and it is fully explained beyond the schema, this is well handled.

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 states a specific verb ('inspect') and a specific resource ('active rendering and processing jobs in the yzturkey video pipeline'), and clarifies what is returned: videos currently being rendered, scene completion counts, and progress percentages. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_video_archive or generate_video_batch.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for inspecting active/current queue jobs, not historical results. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say 'use search_video_archive for completed videos,' so it stops short of a full when/when-not explanation, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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