get_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the item lifecycle (no build number until an executor picks it up), an authorization-based filter (MCP_ALLOWED_JOBS), and explicit negative scope (queue actions and build-parameter values are not returned). It stops short of mentioning ordering, staleness, or whether the call is read-only in cost terms.

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 sentences, all front-loaded onto the payload-defining facts, with zero filler. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what is listed, what a queue item is, and what is filtered out.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotations, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers identity, lifecycle, filtering, and excluded fields well. Remaining gaps are minor (ordering of items, how blocked reasons are formatted).

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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to compensate for or contradict.

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 ('List builds') plus its distinguishing scope ('waiting to start'), which separates it from siblings like list_running_builds and get_queue_item. The clarifying sentence that a queue item is 'not a build yet' and has no build number pins down exactly what set is returned.

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 MCP_ALLOWED_JOBS filtering constraint implies when results will be incomplete, but the description never says when to reach for get_queue versus get_queue_item or list_running_builds. Usage is inferable from the concept, not stated.

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