queue_active

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing filtering to in-flight tasks, meta.all_done flag, and effect of include_finished. No contradictions.

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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return behavior (filtered tasks, meta.all_done). With openWorldHint and readOnlyHint, it's sufficient for a polling tool. Could potentially hint at polling intervals, but not required.

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 100% with a boolean parameter already described. Description adds meaning: include_finished allows seeing just-completed tasks to know if async op succeeded/failed, which is useful context beyond 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?

Description clearly states it polls FastPanel background tasks for a deterministic done/not-done signal, contrasts with naive polling, and specifies filtering behavior. It differentiates itself from siblings like queue_list by focusing on in-flight tasks and providing meta.all_done.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use (polling for done/not-done) and when not (naive raw endpoint), and describes include_finished option for checking final status. No explicit alternative sibling named, but the guidance is clear.

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